Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9th November],
That the Promoters of the Anglian Water Authority Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further procedings thereon in order to proceed with that BUI, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session, and their locus standi has not been disallowed;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned until tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: Before Questions begin I wish, without a hint of discourtesy, to remind hon. Members that supplementary questions should, first, be brief and, secondly, seek information and not impart it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a public inquiry into the increase in building cost of Ninewells Hospital, Dundee.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): As the building contractors have moved for arbitration in the light of the final certificate issued on 26th October 1976 and have also started legal proceedings against the health board, it would be inappropriate to take a decision at this stage on the holding of an inquiry.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister has given perhaps the only answer he could give in the circumstances. Does he accept that there is considerable anxiety about the manner in which these costs have been built up? Is the system of public accounting at the Scottish Office sufficiently sophisticated to deal with such circumstances? Will the Minister conduct an internal departmental inquiry into the way in which the costs escalated from £10 million to £25 million?

Mr. Ewing: I accept that there is public concern on this question, but there is Government concern as well. These are highly complicated, complex and difficult legal matters. It would be better if the House agreed that we should leave the matter to take its legal process before examining it further.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that the same costly, insensitive blind bureaucracy has been displayed by the Tayside Health Board in its dealings with the services offered by Arbroath Infirmary? Will he look into that? Does he realise that health boards will be giving poorer services to local people at greater cost?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Member has a Question later on the Order Paper on the subject, and it would be unfair for me to pre-empt the answer to that Question.

Community Councils

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest position regarding the establishment of community councils in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): Schemes for the establishment of community councils have been received from all 56 district and islands councils accompanied by a very large number of representations disagreeing with details of the proposals. All schemes and the relevant representations are being considered as quickly as possible. To date, nine have been approved and my right hon. Friend expects to deal with almost all of them before the end of the year.

Mr. Buchanan: I am gratified to hear that my hon. Friend seeks to secure completion before the end of the year. Is he aware that the involvement of grassroots interest in furtherance of the community spirit and in the campaign against many of the social evils that afflict our areas is dependent on setting up the community councils as quickly as possible? Will he see that he adheres to that timetable?

Mr. McElhone: I support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). We are trying to meet the deadline before the end of the year, but there are certain difficulties. This exercise reflected a very genuine concern by Glasgow and other districts to consider the observations of local communities. That was certainly the spirit of Wheatley. All I can say to my hon. Friend is to assure him that I, with my noble Friend who has day-to-day responsibility for community councils, will be trying to ensure that as many as possible are dealt with through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the end of the year.

Mr. MacCormick: Does not the Minister accept that the last Conservative Government went to a great deal of trouble to create a new tier in local government, and that we do not want community

councils in Scotland until we have got rid of these ridiculous regional authorities? Is that not a more important priority?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has nothing to do with the original Question. He might wish not to support regional authorities in Scotland, but if that is so why did he and his party put up so many candidates for the regional authorities?

Mr. Carmichael: I appreciate the difficulties and the work involved in setting up community councils and in vetting the proposals for them. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider urging the Secretary of State to devote more resources to this task? There is a great deal of local enthusiasm for community councils, and it would be unfortunate if it were dissipated by a delay in setting them up.

Mr. McElhone: I accept my hon. Friend's comments about the enthusiasm for local community councils. The views of the local authorities had to be in by 15th May this year. Glasgow sent in its views five days afterwards, and most of the other authorities sent them in at the last moment together with views and considerations from local communities. The result was a large number of submissions having to be dealt with in a very short time. The Scottish Office officials are working extremely hard to ensure that my right hon. Friend will have the opportunity of approving almost all of them before the end of the year.

Mr. Galbraith: Is it necessary to set up community councils all together? Could it not be done one at a time? What about the situation in Glasgow? Many of the questions today have come from Glasgow Members, who are naturally very concerned. Will the Minister give some indication when Glasgow may expect the community councils? Will he be more definite than "before the end of the year"?

Mr. McElhone: I can only repeat what I said earlier. There was a large number of representations, especially from Glasgow. The whole basis of Wheatley on this issue was to ensure that local communities' representations were considered, and not merely the views of local authorities. My right hon. Friend is keen to ensure that ordinary communities that


are concerned about the spirit of family life and the development of the community in their areas receive a fair hearing. He decided to ensure that all representations were studied carefully in the interests of the communities. When that has been done, he will make his decision. My right hon. Friend is conscious of the need to get early decisions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that almost all of them should have been carried through before the end of the year.

Mr. Lambie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the setting up of community councils will mean substantial increases in public expenditure for very little effort? Will he consider scrapping the whole idea of community councils and using the money that would have been involved in increased public expenditure for more necessary services?

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in community affairs in his constituency. Despite his opposition and protest, I can assure the House that my hon. Friend sends me many letters on behalf of his constituents as he does to my ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office. I must point out to my hon. Friend that by getting community spirit and community life going in Scotland, we hope to prevent expenditure on vandalism, for example, and on other aspects of community life that are disagreeable to most of us and that are occupying the minds of many people in the Government, especially my hon. Friend who deals with these matters at the Scottish Office.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in approving the scheme has meant that in some areas the initial enthusiasm is fading away? To take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hill-head (Mr. Galbraith), may I ask whether the Glasgow scheme will be approved by the end of the year? What will be the cost of community councils to public funds in a full year?

Mr. McElhone: It is not for us to determine the actual cost. That is a matter that is left to the discretion of local authorities. The authorities made allowances for the cost in their rate support grant allocations from the Scottish Office. I understand that Glasgow is allocating

about £300 per community council. That may be good for some of the smaller councils but it may be difficult for some of the larger ones, which will include many thousands of Glasgow constituents.
As regards enthusiasm and the time lag, I can only say that there were many representations. I can only repeat what I have said so often. We have only a few weeks to go, and we regard community councils as a most important factor in our communities.

Scottish Development Agency (Job Creation)

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new jobs have been created to date as a result of the work of the Scottish Development Agency.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): In detail, this is a matter for the Agency. I am satisfied, nevertheless, that the Agency's industrial investment, factory building and environmental activities to date will have a significant impact on both the creation and the maintenance of employment. Factory lettings alone will, it is estimated, account for over 2,000 jobs.

Mr. Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a reply like that puts a smokescreen across the work of the Agency? How can he reconcile his answer with the words of the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that the Agency would produce an industrial transformation in Scotland? Does he agree that putting the Scottish Development Agency into the present unemployment situation is the equivalent of sending an army with peashooters to fight a modern war?

Mr. MacKenzie: I must say that that is one of the daftest supplementary questions I have heard since I joined the Scottish Office. The Agency has not yet reached its first birthday, but already there have been two substantial factory building programmes and investment in two major companies that will help to create and maintain jobs. We all appreciate the worthwhile environmental work that has been done by the Agency in a very short time.

Mr. Selby: Did Alexander Stephens Engineering take advantage of the offer to approach the Agency for financial assistance before it closed down?

Mr. MacKenzie: The Stephens issue is quite another matter, as my hon. Friend well knows. I know that the Agency has been able to help in Govan not only in employment but in environmental matters that are important to my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister of State realise that his answers are astonishingly uninformative and complacent? How many jobs has the SDA retained through pseudo-nationalisation, and how many has it actually created?

Mr. MacKenzie: I have already indicated how many jobs have been created or are likely to be created as a result of the factory building programme. I have indicated, too—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed this in the Press—the work that has been done by the Agency regarding Ranco Motors and only recently as regards Munrospun Knitwear of Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the debates that took place in the House about the Highlands and Islands Development Board. There was great opposition from the Conservatives, but my postbag is now filled with letters written by Conservative Members asking whether I can get help from the HIDB as well as from the SDA.

Crimes of Violence and Dishonesty

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest increases in crimes of violence and dishonesty in Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to combat the rise of crimes of violence and dishonesty in Scotland.

Mr. Harry Ewing: First indications for the early part of 1976 suggest that the upward trend for 1975 which the former Secretary of State announced on 9th March has continued, largely in the area of crimes of dishonesty. We are in regular contact with chief constables about crime prevention measures and have studied with them what further measures can be taken to improve public co-operation and support for the police in crime prevention measures, such as the present

publicity campaign on crime prevention including vandalism.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged to the Minister for his reply, but does it not demonstrate complete complacency? Is he surprised that there are so many failures in education? Is there not demonstrated a degree of complacency towards a major and growing social evil? Will the hon. Gentleman announce some measures that demonstrate that the Government mind about the crime rate and that they are willing to assist society in preventing the increasing difficulties which are brought about by crime by assisting the police to prevent it by, if necessary, taking measures through the Lord Advocate's Department?

Mr. Ewing: I realise the difficulties that the hon. and learned Gentleman faced today of all days and the difficulty he obviously had in preparing that supplementary question. We have announced various measures to assist the police in combating crimes of violence and crimes of dishonesty. I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the strength of the police force in Scotland is now higher than it has ever been. However, the police require the public's co-operation. It is in that area of public co-operation that we are desperately anxious to enlist the aid of both hon. Members and members of the public.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware that Scotland already has the highest prison population per head in the Western world? As we still have a distressingly high criminal incidence rate, will he examine alternative forms of sentencing which would not only be cheaper but might even be more effective?

Mr. Ewing: We are at present examining alternative forms of sentencing, such as community work. We have asked four regional authorities in Scotland to consider that possibility. We are in discussions with the regional authorities at the moment.
I must correct a wrong impression that appears to have been given. We have in Scotland the highest male population prison rate in Western Europe, but it must be said at this time of women's lib that we have the lowest female prison population in Western Europe.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister realise that half the men admitted to Scottish prisons in any one year are admitted for non-payment of fines and other minor offences? Instead of being complacent about experimenting with community service orders, will he appreciate that such orders have been tried out successfully during the last four years south of the border? Will he speed up the implementation of these proposals in Scotland in order that the prisons can deal with the real problem of hardened prisoners in our society?

Mr. Ewing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has realised the true facts. I understood that in recent weeks he and some of his hon. Friends were saying tha half the prison population were held because of the non-payment of fines. The true daily position is that only 8 per cent, of the prison population are held because of non-payment of fines. It requires some consultation—I thought that the Opposition were in favour of consultation—with regional authorities to introduce and implement community service orders.

Mrs. Bain: Specifically as regards juvenile crime, will the Minister indicate when he expects the various steering committees to report and when we can expect intermediate powers to be awarded to children's panels to fulfil their useful rôle in Scottish society?

Mr. Ewing: That is a matter for the social work departments. I cannot say when the various steering committees dealing with that aspect of the problem will report. Serious consideration is now being given to the possibility of giving children's panels wider powers and ranges of treatment.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement regarding the prospects for the Scottish fishing industry.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The market has continued to improve with the value of land-

ings for the Scottish industry as a whole for the first nine months of 1976, at £60·4 million, some 43 per cent, above the comparable figure for 1975. Progress has been made in external aspects of the common fisheries policy, but there are still difficult and important issues in fisheries limits and conservation matters to be resolved.

Mr. Sproat: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great and growing concern, particularly in Aberdeen, regarding access to the Faroese ground after 1st January? What provision for negotiation with the Faroese through the EEC has he made or is he in process of making?

Mr. Millan: The first step is to get Community confidence established by the establishment of the 200-mile limit and then agreement by the members of the Community that the Community will carry out those negotiations.
The Faroese problem is being tackled by the Community now. In the programme of discussions and consultations that the Community hopes to put into operation before the end of the year, it hopes to have at least preliminary consultations on that as well as many other problems.

Mr. Grimond: Have the British Government obtained any undertaking, such as I understand the Irish Government have got, that if they agreed to 200 miles their special need for a 50-mile limit would be given every consideration by the Community?

Mr. Millan: The Irish Government's demands are for a limit up to 50 miles. In that respect the Irish Government are on the same footing as the British Government. There were references in the recent communique not only to the special problems of the Irish fishing industry, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the complete text, to the special needs and interests of the northern regions of the United Kingdom, which include Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the support given by the spokesman for the Scottish National Party, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), to the proposition of broad bands of up to 50 miles contradicts the claim for a 100-mile limit made at the weekend?
Secondly, has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on the anger expressed by Scottish fishermen and their official spokesman regarding the attempt by the spokesman for the SNP to involve them in provocative and illegal actions?

Mr. Millan: I know that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), who is the fisheries spokesman for the SNP, has made a lot of very silly statements recently which have been repudiated by the fishermen. I also know that, despite the fact that the SNP has been pretending to be in favour of a 100-mile limit, the hon. Member for Banff has within the last few days signed an appeal for limits of up to 50 miles, which is the objective of the British Government.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Secretary of State give a clear undertaking that he is able to represent the Scottish fishing industry in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy as effectively and energetically as the Irish fishing industry has been represented by its Government? Is he aware that these renegotiations are a critical test of the argument put forward by those of us who supported Britain in Europe in the referendum that Scotland's interests are better represented through Britain than through a separate Scottish representation?

Mr. Millan: The answer to both questions is an unequivocal " Yes ".

Mr. Watt: Does the House recognise that the Scottish National Party accepts a 50-mile limit under protest but that it reserves the right for an independent Scotland to seek to extend it to 100 miles? Regarding the outcome of the discussions on haddock quotas this week, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Scottish fishermen deeply resent the fact that they have to stop fishing for haddock while the boats of other nations are allowed to go on fishing for that species in our waters?

Mr. Millan: I think that the more the hon. Gentleman says about fishing, the better, because he contradicts himself with every successive statement. I am glad that the SNP is now in favour of a 50-mile limit. That is another instant change of policy.
We have had discussions with the industry within the last couple of days regarding haddock. I hope to be able to make

an announcement soon. The House will know that the quotas were agreed with the industry and that we are under legal obligations on this matter. It is in our long-term interests to have conservation policies which stick and are effective. There is room for flexibility on the haddock and whiting quotas, for example. We intend to use that flexibility. We are also looking at other possibilities. I hope to make a statement with the next two to three days.

Agriculture

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the target for agricultural expansion in Scotland is being achieved.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): We shall shortly be examining the economic situation and prospects of the farming industry with the National Farmers Unions during the annual review. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate the outcome of that review.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are big discrepancies in the financial returns of certain sections of the industry, as exemplified by the action which had to be taken recently regarding returns for fat pigs? Does he accept that unless that is put right we cannot have a healthy agriculture industry in Scotland?

Mr. Brown: One of the fascinating things about the agriculture industry is that there are always big discrepancies. Those who produce certain crops or commodities may do well one year but not so well the next year. However, all-round prospects are good. Indeed, the economic returns to the farmers are well up on anything that they have had during the last few years.

Mr. Crawford: Does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons for lack of investment in agriculture in Scotland is uncertainty surrounding the green pound? Does he further agree that that could be overcome by the establishment of a sovereign, strong Scottish pound to which a green pound Scots would be linked and that the establishment of a strong and healthy green pound Scots would give satisfaction to agriculture interests in Scotland, both consumers and producers alike?

Mr. Brown: I have enough difficulty understanding how the green pound works, never mind the tortuous statement made by the hon. Gentleman about a mythical Scottish pound. The basic fundamental facts concerning the indicators in the industry are all favourable to the farming community. I rest my case on that.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend accept that farmers in Scotland had a very successful year last year? It would be in the interests of consumers—and we on this side of the House represent them—if the Government insisted on sticking to their policy on the green pound and did not yield to the blandishments of either the National Farmers Union or the Scottish National Party, both of which are in favour of the interests of farmers and against those of consumers.

Mr. Brown: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that farmers are having a very successful year in Scotland, but equally it is true that unless there are successful years the availability of food for consumers is at risk, The Government have an obligation to ensure that there are adequate food supplies. However, on the other hand, farmers cannot expect to be totally immune from the effect of inflation or from the economic problems of industry generally.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Leaving aside the infantile economic futility of a separate Scots pound, will the Minister urge his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a change quickly in the green pound instead of maintaining the 30 per cent, difference between it and the £ sterling? This difference compares with a 2 per cent, change in food prices which would result from an adjustment of the green pound.

Mr. Brown: I thought for a moment that the hon. Member was talking about me when he began his remarks. The green pound is under constant review, but we see a need to look at it in the context of the annual review, which is the most significant date in the farming calendar.

Outer Isles (Shipping Service)

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of

the MV "Loch Carron" from service on the West Coast of Scotland.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My right hon. Friend accepted the unanimous recommendation by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland that the cargo service between Glasgow and the Outer Isles, operated by the "Loch Carron" should be withdrawn after 31st October 1976. The current annual deficit on this service, which was met by revenue grant, was nearly £400,000, and with traffic down to about 5,000 tons this was a loss of £80 on every ton carried.

Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the directive to the Scottish Transport Group from the Scottish Transport Users' Consultative Committee at the hearing last year was that the company should advertise more and improve its services? Nothing was done and, therefore, the company has, in effect, thumbed its nose at the directive. Will the Minister see that the permission is withdrawn?

Mr. MacKenzie: I cannot accept that any operator would wish to withdraw what he regarded as a successful service. From the discussions we have had, I am satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for alternative services for livestock and oil and fuel. The position regarding livestock services will be monitored, and this will be helpful.

Road Accidents

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further plans he has to reduce the number of road accidents in Scotland which have resulted in fatalities and serious injury.

Mr. McElhone: My right hon. Friend will continue to take and support measures designed to reduce such road accidents. Fatal and serious injury casualties for 1975 were the lowest since 1965.

Mr. Hunter: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in the last few months the number of fatal and serious injury accidents in Scotland has been quite appalling, particularly at weekends? Many of these accidents happen in relatively quiet country roads where the traffic is not heavy. In any preventive measures he takes, will my hon. Friend accept the suggestion that warning notices or signs should be displayed more frequently in


such roads to enable motorists to see that they should drive more carefully and with less speed?

Mr. McElhone: I am always in favour of care on the roads, but I must disagree with my hon. Friend when he talks about a serious increase in the number of fatal accidents. My information is that the welcome trend which I have just announced continued through the first six months of this year. If my hon. Friend has a peculiar problem in his area I will be happy to discuss it with him. The Department has a road safety unit which, in addition to carrying out accident studies on trunk roads, advises local authorities about accident prevention. I will discuss with my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend later this week the suggestion about setting up notices.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that one of the most serious forms of accident is to children alighting from school buses? In recent months there have been some fatalities of this kind in my constituency. Will the Minister consider adopting the system of other countries in which school buses have flashing signs which prevent any traffic from moving when the bus has stopped? This not only prevents cars from overtaking school buses but it stops traffic from moving on the other side of the road. This would make a considerable contribution to road safety and would reassure many parents.

Mr. McElhone: Of course, I am prepared to look at any suggestions from any side of the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the Minister say whether many of these fatal accidents were related to drink problems? Have the Government made any estimate of the increase or decrease in the number of road deaths as a result of the greatly extended drinking hours provided for in the Licensing (Scotland) Bill?

Mr. McElhone: I cannot comment on the effects of the new licensing legislation because it has not yet come into effect. However, I share the hon. Member's concern about drinking and driving. The Government have accepted the recommendations in the Blennerhassett Report as a basis for new drink-and-drive

regulations. These will be introduced as soon as possible.

Forestry

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to encourage an increase in planting in the private forestry sector in Scotland.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My right hon. Friend and his colleagues will be looking most carefully at the findings of the interdepartmental review group recently set up to consider the whole question of how private forestry is affected by Government policies on taxation, grants and amenities.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Minister appreciate that timber represents our third biggest import bill, after fuel and food, and that Scotland has the largest percentage of area available for planting? Nevertheless, Scotland is bottom of the European league for the percentage of area under trees. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if substantial tax incentives were given to the private sector of forestry this would make a great contribution to improving our balance of payments?

Mr. Brown: In general I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out the inconsistency in increasing public expenditure to help the private sector. Of course, the balance of payments argument is one which everyone can accept. However, there is a dilemma here, and it is one which faces the Forestry Commission also: how much can any Government devote to an industry on which there will be no return for 40 or 50 years?

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend resist totally the blandishments of those who wish to see valuable public resources going into private industry? Will he discuss the matter with the new Chairman of the Forestry Commission to ensure that that organisation has money available from the public sector for the growing of trees?

Mr. Brown: I share a lot of my hon. Friend's ideological ideas. We must, however, face the fact that about 50 per cent, of timber production comes from the private sector, and it would be irresponsible to ignore its contribution. Nevertheless, I have had discussions with the new


Chairman of the Forestry Commission and one of my priorities is to ensure that the maximum effort is made in the public sector.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister agree that what is really needed is a long-term consensus policy, subscribed to by all parties, so that the timber industry can get on with producing timber in the way it was able to do between the late 1940s and the disastrous Tory White Paper of 1972?

Mr. Brown: As usual, the Scottish National Party is riding about three horses. [An HON. MEMBER: " And falling off all of them."] They can attack both Governments—

Mr. Thompson: Yes, both Governments.

Mr. Brown: I cannot reply to all these interjections. To do so would take too long. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) should appreciate that the SNP is in a unique position. It can attack both Governments on the basis of all sorts of unrealistic things, as it has done particularly with regard to forestry. There would be hardly any room for a sheep, never mind for beef farming, if the SNP had its way.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities concerning the levels of rate support grant.

Mr. Millan: At my meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 5th November, I informed authorities that the rate support grant settlement for 1977–78 will be related to the February 1976 White Paper on Public Expenditure, Cmnd 6393. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has conveyed to me the views of member authorities that the reductions in local authority expenditure would entail the curtailment of services and some redundancy.

Mr. Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman found a solution to the difficult problem of ensuring that local authorities which have kept within the expenditure targets do not find themselves penalised through the rate support grant mechan-

ism in respect of authorities which have exceeded their expenditure targets?

Mr. Millan: The guidelines were not meant to be absolute, because the Scottish Office does not have the kind of information that would enable us to lay down firm lines. The guidelines were meant to be indications of what would be reasonable, given that we wanted authorities to keep within an overall target I am sorry that there is no mechanism within the rate support grant that can be identified and be acceptable to the local authorities themselves to enable me to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I know that this is a sore point with local authorities which feel that they have co-operated with the Government and that they are being penalised. If I could deal with that problem I should be happy to attempt to do so, but so far I have seen no way of doing that, and I think that local authorities take the same view as I do.

Mr. Dalyell: Sensitive as I am to the dangers of special pleading, may I none the less ask my right hon. Friend whether he recognises that Lothian Region has something of a special problem because of the new town of Livingston, as regards both size and the state it is at as a new town?

Mr. Millan: Livingston is not the only new town in Scotland. Every local authority feels that it has a special problem of one sort or another.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge the need for government at all levels to contribute to cuts in public expenditure, but would not the right hon. Gentleman get more co-operation from local authorities if he first set his own house in order, and that of the central Government, by cutting back new schemes of public expenditure or reducing the burden of legislation which passes down to local authorities? Would it not be much better if he were to proceed on the basis of co-operation instead of dictation?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has, as usual, dodged the issue of local government expenditure by pretending that there is some painless way of getting local government expenditure under the kind of control that the Government have indicated. The hon. Gentleman pretends in


this House that it can all be done painlessly when it comes down to local level, but the leader of the Conservative Group on Strathclyde Regional Council only last week was calling for a further reduction in public expenditure, at the expense of 5,000 jobs. Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants?

Social Work (Scotland) Act

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.

Mr. McElhone: In the seven years since most of the provisions of the Act came into operation, the social work services have developed into a major instrument for helping people in need and for promoting the social welfare of the community generally. The increase in local authority expenditure on social work—which has almost doubled in the last five years—is reflected in substantially increased staff and other resources.

Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that children's panels set up under the Act have been undermined by the fact that List D schools are greatly overcrowded and in some areas social work departments are overloaded and can only cope with emergency cases? Does he think, as many of us on this side do, that it would be a good idea to re-establish a separate probation service?

Mr. McElhone: I do not share that view. Perhaps I may give the figures of the numbers involved in social work in Scotland. In 1970 the figure was 7,978, while in 1974 it was 12,800. The hon. Gentleman has several times raised with me the question of waiting lists at List D schools. Indeed, this was the subject of an Adjournment debate. In June 1975 there were 576 on the waiting list, and on 17th October of this year that figure was down to 362. Next week my Department is having a meeting with all the people involved in the running of List D schools and on the agenda, at my request, is a proposal to look at the whole question of List D accommodation. I have recently visited many of the List D schools. I found that one in Aberdeen had 20 empty places. I want that examined. I believe that we should look for a better way of allocating places and that if we were to succeed in finding it the

figure of 362 would be substantially reduced.

Mr. Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware of a considerable lack of liaison between regional social work departments and district housing authorities, particularly in relation to the problem of battered wives? Will he consider transferring the social work departments to district council authorities?

Mr. McElhone: That is not a matter for me. I realise the concern that exists about battered wives, and I can tell my hon. Friend that in Edinburgh on Monday my hon. Friend who is responsible for Scottish housing and I will be meeting a joint group of the housing and social work departments of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman take the greatest care to ensure that reductions in social work expenditure do not lead ultimately to increased expenditure? For example, is he aware that on a grant of less than £100,000 the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children spends £500,000 every year on essential work, and that if this grant were withdrawn the net cost to the Exchequer and public expenditure would be very much greater?

Mr. McElhone: I am aware of the great work done by the Royal Society. We all applaud its efforts. It does a wonderful job all over Scotland. Subventions come in the main through local authorities as social work provision, and the Government have not asked local authorities to make any cuts at all. The provision for social work in the rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 was 3 per cent, above that for last year. I appreciate the many demands made upon local authorities for social work, but the priorities within a region for social work and other services are determined by local authorities. It is not an easy task for them, and we are co-operating as much as possible. I hope that the initiative that I have taken with church leaders and other bodies will help in some way to take care of the problem rightly raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a year has elapsed


since the debate on the Children Bill when he indicated to the House that working parties were looking into the provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act? What has happened since then? When will these bodies report, and when can action be expected in terms of legislation?

Mr. McElhone: A number of committees are considering the whole question of the Act about which the hon. Gentleman asks and in which he took a great interest when it was going through the House. My right hon. Friend has been consulting many bodies on the whole question of children and children's panels and reparations. I hope that the submissions coming in will be made known in a statement by my right hon. Friend some time in the near future.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware of the statement by the Lothian Regional Council that if the Government do not alter their position on the rate support grant the council will be required to cut home help services by 10 per cent, and close at least one old folk's home? How can that be reconciled with the spirit of the Social Work (Scotland) Act?

Mr. McElhone: I am not aware of the position with regard to home helps in the Lothian Region, but I take it that what my hon. Friend says is correct. Perhaps I can give the figures for the total number of home helps. In 1970, 33,000 households were receiving home help services. In 1974, the number was 56,000. In Glasgow, the area which I know best, although there was a rationalisation of home help services, more families were getting the service from home helps; but I appreciate the position outlined by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The fact that there is no List D accommodation at all in the Highlands Region is a matter of grave concern in the region. Can the hon. Gentleman see his way to reconsidering his attitude to the Kinmylies project?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Kinmylies project. I had a good meeting with the Highland Region in St. Andrew's House on the whole question of List D provision in the Highlands Region. The region appreciates the difficulties of the Government at the

present time. I said that although we were keen on the project we were considering looking at the phasing of it. I want to be honest with the House. I cannot give a date, but the whole question of List D provision and the way in which it will be disbursed into local authorities' care is being actively considered by my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMINAL TRIALS (110-DAY RULE)

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Lord Advocate how many accused persons have been released under the 110-day rule since 1945; and when and in what court these releases occurred.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): No records are kept of these particulars.

Mr. Fairbairn: No doubt it is wise for the Lord Advocate not to keep records of his own incompetence. Does he not appreciate that there is growing public concern in Scotland that the incompatibility of those who are employed in his Department results in miscarriages of justice with growing frequency when men are released who have been charged with serious crimes? What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do to demonstrate that he is in charge of the Department for which he is responsible?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not noted for his consistency, except perhaps in demanding my resignation. He has asked for certain figures, and the Question relates to that. In effect, the hon. and learned Gentleman is criticising the Government for not cutting public expenditure enough At the same time, he is demanding that my Department keeps statistics which it cannot usefully and productively keep.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is it not the case with regard to the Tartan Army trial that the presiding judge who heard the application refused an extension of the 110-day rule? Does this not reflect on the competence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department, since if the presiding judge had thought that there was justification he would have granted an extension? Is it not the case that there are also instances in Scotland in


respect of other court cases? The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look at the administration of his Department in order to make sure that these problems do not arise in future.

The Lord Advocate: I would refute any suggestion that the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were in any way connected with the competence of those running the cases concerned. I should indicate that the Government and the Crown were guided in this particular aspect of the law by two reported cases, Bickerstaff and Boyle. For the first time, the line of reasoning in those cases was questioned in the Tartan Army trial. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that a bill of advocation has been tabled by the Crown which raises the matter, and this will be heard by the High Court of Justiciary on Friday.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given by the Lord Advocate, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment. If he cannot give me the figures, I can give them to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFENSIVE WEAPONS

Mr. Monro: asked the Lord Advocate how many prosecutions there have been relating to the possession of offensive weapons in the last 12 months.

The Lord Advocate: Between 1st November 1975 and 31st October 1976 there were 1,557 prosecutions for offences under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which makes it an offence for a person to have in his possession an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. In addition, prosecutions have been brought for offences involving the use of offensive weapons, as, for example, in assaults and breaches of the peace, but separate statistics are not available for these.

Mr. Monro: I thank the Minister for his reply. Since it is possible at the drop of a hat for the police to search a person for drugs or for protected birds' eggs, should it not be made easier for a policeman to search for offensive weapons than it is at the present time?

The Lord Advocate: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In fact, a recommendation that an experiment in this direction should be tried for a period of five years was made in the Scottish Council on Crime's report in 1975. It is only fair to add that the figures for convictions over the past three years indicate a decline in the number of convictions for offences under Section 1 of the 1953 Act.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not follow the facile analogy in respect of searching for birds' eggs and so on. This matter was closely examined over a period of years, and most of the arguments on the social aspects came down against the proposition that we should open this up to search for offensive weapons.

The Lord Advocate: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are two sides to the question, but I do not agree with the way he put his side of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLASGOW HIGH COURT (CRIMINAL TRIALS)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied with the present procedure for hearing criminal trials at the High Court in Glasgow.

The Lord Advocate: No, but I consider that those concerned are doing the best they can with the available facilities.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Lord Advocate accept that, while the present system for the hearing of criminal trials in the High Court in Glasgow may be convenient for the Crown Office and for the presiding judge, the procedure is grossly inconvenient for defence counsel, the accused, witnesses, potential jurors, the public and the taxpayer? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that he is dissatisfied with the present procedure, what does he intend to do in the short term to rectify the situation?

The Lord Advocate: It would not be correct to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present arrangements are convenient for the judges or the prosecution, but there are great difficulties here. Personally, I think that there is a great deal to be said for introducing, for an experimental period, a fixed diet system


in Glasgow. This would raise considerable difficulties, but the recommendation was made by the Thomson Committee and I hope that it will be possible.

Mr. Dalyell: Has any estimate been made of the cost to the taxpayer of implementing the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind)?

The Lord Advocate: No. My hon. Friend raises a relevant point. I remind the hon. Member for Pentlands that an increase in expenditure would undoubtedly be likely.

Mr. Fairbairn: While the Lord Advocate says that the arrangements are not convenient for judges and prosecutors in the High Court of Glasgow, does he not appreciate that the inconvenience of those concerned is of the order that my hon. Friend the Member for Pent-lands mentioned? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to accelerate what he has put forward in a genuine attempt at fixed diets in Glasgow in which the consideration of all those who have to appear is equally considered?

The Lord Advocate: I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, but this is a matter which ministerially does not rest with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS (STIRLINGSHIRE)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate when he next plans to make an official visit to the courts in Stirlingshire.

The Lord Advocate: I have no plans at present to visit the courts in Stirling District.

Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the purpose of the courts in Stirlingshire is to protect the good people of Stirlingshire from some of the rogues who live there? If the Department of Trade grants my request for a Government inquiry into the affairs of Scottish and Universal Investments, and if that inquiry reveals evidence of fraud or any other criminal activities, will my right hon. and learned Friend see that those responsible are prosecuted, whether they are in castles in Stirlingshire or in accountants' offices in Glasgow or anywhere else?

The Lord Advocate: It would be wrong for me to comment on the particular case raised by my hon. Friend but if any alleged criminal offences are reported to my Department they will be fully investigated.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Lord Advocate know of the disgraceful attempts being made at present to remove the jurisdiction for parliamentary elections from the sheriff courts and place them with unnamed local authorities? What is he doing about that?

The Lord Advocate: That is not a proper question for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARA-MILITARY ORGANISATIONS (FILM)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate why he asked BBC Scotland to arrange a private viewing of the "Current Account" programme dealing with alleged para-military organisations in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Advocate: I saw the programme live on television. I did not personally ask BBC Scotland for a private viewing. As the programme appeared to indicate that offences had been committed in Scotland, I instructed the procurator fiscal at Glasgow to investigate and report to me. He obtained a private viewing of the programme and I hope that he will be in a position to report to me in the near future.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Lord Advocate agree that Scotland has been fortunate in having a limited number of terrorist outrages compared with Ulster? Ought not the BBC and other media to show the greatest caution in making such programmes? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman investigating, or will the prosecuting authorities investigate, a newspaper report that one of the so-called terrorists was offered a substantial sum in expenses only on condition that he said something sensational?

The Lord Advocate: I note the earlier point which the hon. Gentleman has made and I entirely agree with it. I am satisfied that we have not had the same amount of terrorist activity in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROTARY TOOLS TRIAL

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Lord Advocate if he is now in a position to indicate the cost to the taxpayer of the Rotary Tools trial at Glasgow which terminated on 6th June 1976.

The Lord Advocate: The defence costs are not yet known to the Law Society. I am therefore unable to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on 30th June 1976.

Mr. Buchanan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to do something about settling this account? The trial finished in 1976 and it is testing our credulity to expect us to believe that he cannot finalise the accounts by this time. Surely the defence and the prosecution know what the trial cost the taxpayer. If they do not know, they should.

The Lord Advocate: I can only say to my hon. Friend that no public body can come into the reckoning until the firm concerned has submitted accounts.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that we reached only Question No. 12 to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that this is making a farce of Question Time? Two weeks today at Ten o'clock in the morning my Question was handed in, but only reached the halfway mark.
You made a personal appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that you should also have emphasised the point to the Front Benches. Whether we like it or not, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queens Park (Mr. McElhone) made a speech in answer to every question. As a consequence, our Questions were never reached.
It is hardly worth while hon. Members going to the trouble to put down Questions when that sort of thing happens, especially when there are so many supplementary questions from hon. Members who would not take the trouble to put down a Question themselves. Would you consider effective ways and means of end-

ing this farce and giving us a fair chance of getting a Question answered?

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not wish you to think that the protest made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) was limited to his side of the House. This is not the first time that he and others have had this experience. I should like you to take note that many of us on the Back Benches on both sides fully agree with his submission.

Mr. Speaker: I made an appeal to those who were here at the beginning of Question Time, but I think that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has done a service to the House in some of the things that he has said. I hope that the House will bear them in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EEC (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS)

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that when a meeting of the Council of Ministers has been held in Brussels, it is the accepted undertaking of the Government that a statement is made in the House. On Monday there was an important meeting of the Ministers of Finance in Brussels, but there is no statement today. I was wondering whether there was anything that you could do to encourage the Government to honour that undertaking so that we may have statements on these important matters which are in progress.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House and others are present and will have heard what the hon. Member has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINES SUPPLY (ROCHDALE)

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration; namely
The lack of vaccine supply in Rochdale and the national implications of such lack of supply.
This matter has come to my notice only in the last 30 minutes.
The House will be aware that there has been an outbreak of polio in my constituency and it threatens to spread to one or two other parts of the country, particularly parts of Wales. I now learn from the medical officer of health, as a result of a telephone call this afternoon, that he is unable to vaccinate schoolchildren in Rochdale because he cannot obtain sufficient quantities of the vaccine required. I submit, therefore, that as lives are at stake this matter should have urgent consideration and should be sufficiently important to warrant the attention of the House at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
The lack of vaccine supply in Rochdale and the national implications of such lack of supply.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. All I have to decide is whether the question must take precedence over all other business. It is not the importance of the matter that I am deciding.
I have given consideration to the representations of the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and that therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Mr. Speaker: Unless there is objection, in order to save time I propose to put the Question on the three motions relating to Statutory Instruments together.

Ordered,
That the draft Farm Amalgamations (Variation) Scheme 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Farm Structure (Payments to Outgoers) Scheme 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Fugitive Offenders (United Kingdom Dependencies) (Amendment) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr Stoddart.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LORDS AMENDMENTS)

3.36 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That, for the remainder of this Session, any Questions necessary to dispose of Motions moved by a Minister of the Crown, and any amendments thereto selected by Mr. Speaker, relating to Committees to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to Amendments to Bills shall be decided forthwith, and proceedings on such Motions, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to inform the House that I have received a manuscript amendment from the Official Opposition and that I have selected it for debate. The amendment reads as follows: to leave out from "Bills" to "though".

Mr. Foot: When this House disagrees with amendments made in another place to Bills sent there by this House it is the convention to appoint a Committee to draw up reasons for such disagreement. The Bill is then sent back to the other place with the House of Commons reasons for disagreeing with the Lords amendments. The appointment of such a Committee has always been treated by the House as a formality—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We may have some discussion about that later, but it is the usual understanding that the appointment of such a Committee has always been treated as a formality—to such an extent, indeed, that it is not even provided for in the Standing Orders of the House. I believe that it is right that the appointment of such Committees should continue to be treated as a formality in that sense.
Giving reasons to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments is in one sense no more than a necessary courtesy. The decisions of substance on the amendments have already been taken by the House by the time the appointment of such a Committee is proposed and in drawing up its reasons the Committee is bound by the decisions of the House. I think there is no real disagreement between the parties on that aspect of the matter.
An alteration to the situation arose last night, because the Opposition wished to propose an additional name as a member of the Committee. However, the time for opposed business had expired and Mr. Speaker therefore ruled that the amendment could not be taken last night.
In the light of this situation, which I believe is unprecedented, the Government have thought it right to table the motion which appears on the Order Paper today to allow the Questions necessary to the appointment of such Committees, and any amendments which the Chair may think it appropriate to select, to be taken at the end of our consideration of Lords amendments. The motion also provides for such Questions to be decided forthwith.
As I have said, the appointment of such a Committee is no more than a formality and a courtesy and I believe it is in accordance with the spirit in which the House has treated these motions in the past to make such provision. The appointment of these Committees is merely the logical consequence of decisions the House has already taken and I do not believe there can be any dispute about the need to appoint them.
I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the motion. If there is debate, perhaps I might be allowed to reply later. I believe this to be the best way for the House to proceed. That is why the Government have tabled the motion.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He asked us whether we can accept the motion in due course. Are we to take it that, in the same spirit, he will accept the amendment?

Mr. Foot: The amendment has not yet been moved. What I would prefer to do, if it suits the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition, is to comment on the amendment after it has been moved. The amendment would permit a debate to take place and would mean that the motion would not be put forthwith. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to that amendment or to the amendment of which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) gave notice yesterday, proposing the addition of a name.

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for questioning me further. I am anxious to explain. I was referring to the amendment of which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) yesterday gave notice. As I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to waste the time of the House and wishes to get on expeditiously with the business, perhaps he will indicate whether he is prepared to accept that amendment.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman would prefer it, I am prepared now to comment on the proposal made last night by the right hon. Member for Yeovil. The difficulty about that proposal is that if it were carried, instead of there being parity on the Committee which decides on the answer of disagreement to the Lords, the Government would be in a minority. It would be the first time in history that that had been proposed. No one could say that such a proposition as that was not altering the whole spirit and letter of the way in which these matters have been dealt with. If the amendment were to be carried it would alter the whole nature of the procedure, and we do not think that that is the right course to take.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment to the Question, to leave out from " Bills" to "though".
I am quite prepared to meet the convenience of the Secretary of State by moving the amendment to which Mr. Speaker has referred. The effect would be to permit discussion of the two later motions which we reach after the guillotine procedures this evening. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the amendment and subsequently take a useful and positive part in the discussion of those two later motions.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the giving of reasons to the Lords for disagreeing with them in their amendments was a necessary courtesy. We have sometimes come to the sad conclusion that the Government do not regard courtesy as ever being necessary.
There are two explanations for the situation in which the Government find themselves. One is kindly and the other less kindly. I accept without hesitation the


kindly explanation, which is that somewhere in the shades of the Government Benches there lurks some sense of shame, some unease, at the grubby expedients which the Government have been driven to adopt to get through their shoddy business. This somehow puts them off their stroke and disturbs their judgment. The less kindly interpretation is that the Government take Parliament so much for granted that they feel themselves to be excused from taking pains with the rules or showing too much courtesy.
As the motion is concerned with the time of the House, it would be convenient for me to say now that later tonight, at the expiry of the guillotine time, the Opposition would be fully justified in following the example set by the Labour Party when in opposition on the Industrial Relations Bill and requiring the House to vote through the night and into the morning. I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends have a lively recollection of finishing voting at 11 o'clock in the morning, having started voting at 11 o'clock at night, without a word of argument or debate having been expended. Out of regard for the House and respect for its convenience, this would not be the intention of my hon. and right hon. Friends.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Get on with it.

Mr. Peyton: Do not tempt us too far. Despite the characteristically bad behaviour of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who knows no better, we would feel obliged to vote on a number of the most important amendments, but that would be only a very small number. If we were to exercise this restraint, I must make it absolutely clear that we would do so on the understanding that it implies no qualification whatsoever of our support for the House of Lords or our abhorrence and detestation of the Government's actions.
The question we have to ask meanwhile is, why should the Government be permitted to dispose of this matter as quickly and easily as they wish now to do? I suppose it is necessary—

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there have been occasions in the past when we have gone

through the process of the guillotine in respect of Lords amendments, although it has never happened when a Tory Government have been in power. A Tory Government have never been placed in the predicament of having to get rid of Lords amendments—and there is irony in that. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we have been through this procedure before, but never on any occasion have we had to go through the process of passing the motion on the Order Paper, because the Tory Front Bench has never before bothered to challenge the procedure, although there have been similar occasions during the lifetime of the present Government?

Mr. Peyton: I do not suppose that that intervention was particularly useful to anybody else in the House, although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to have a glass of water.
It is necessary for me to remind the House that the Government majority—which on these three Bills came down to one and in one instance depended on the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire)—hardly justifies their coming forward as the unsullied champions of democratic rights and attacking vigorously and viciously the House of Lords, which is simply doing the duty laid upon it by a Labour Government in 1949. Nor does it warrant their having it all their own way on a Committee which is designed to give reasons. I can think of few collections of people whom I would regard as less fitted than right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to formulate reasons for anything.
We therefore seek to amend the motion to allow discussions of the later motions which will come up tonight. We recognise that the rather peremptory conduct of the Government is very convenient to the Left wing—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) reminds me more of Sydney cricket ground than of anything else. I am tempted to wonder what he looks like when he is standing up. I thought for a moment that we were going to have a demonstration of the reality of the nightmare, but happily we were let off.
This peremptory demand is, as I was saying, very convenient to the Left. It


behoves us at any rate to ask the question, what of the moderates? Their influence is not obvious, but they are talked of much. What of the moderates, who have done so much to get the Labour Party into power by giving it a veneer of respectability? But these people are constantly dragged at the chariot wheels of the Left.
We hope that the Government will accept this very reasonable amendment, but before I sit down I would like to quote a passage from "Erskine May", a book not every page of which absolutely thrills me. But on page 602 there occurs this majestic sentence:
When ministers command the confidence of a majority in both Houses, concord is assured.
What a marvellously lucid explanation of the discord in which we presently find ourselves, when Ministers command the confidence of neither House.
I hope that lion. Members will care to exercise their imaginations about what happens in the situation referred to later on that page, where there occurs reference to how communication takes place between the two Houses. The usual way, it is said, is by message. It goes on:
Conferences between the two Houses are now obsolete, since their main function, that of providing an occasion for communicating reasons for disagreement to amendments to bills, has been taken over by the modern practice of sending messages … it remains theoretically possible for either House to request a conference with reference to amendments to bills disagreed to.
What a lovely thought that we should now have a conference between the two Houses. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends, notable for their modesty and restraint, would wish on such an occasion to be mere spectators, because we would like to witness the happy reunions between the bands of brothers from both Houses, including, from the other place, the staunch and loyal supporters of the Labour Party, particularly the Wilson creations, so popular and so well thought of on the Benches opposite. When they brought their messages down here and came to talk to us, we would like them to come bearing their Division records, because, although we impute nothing but the highest and nicest motives to these distinguished people, that unkind and nightmare group below

the Gangway opposite has some very serious scores to wipe off.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: Mr. Ernest G. Perry (Battersea, South)rose—

Mr. Peyton: I ask the pardon of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry), for whom I have nothing but respect, for I have done him wrong. But I must warn him that he should be more careful as to where he sits. Not even the gleam of his reputation could survive the tarnish which he is risking now.
The Government have got themselves into a real difficulty, not for the first time. As usual, they seek to put the blame upon other people.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is nit-picking.

Mr. Peyton: I must say that the advice I get from that quarter—

Mr. Russell Kerr: —is brilliant.

Mr. Peyton: I repeat what I said the other day. I do not believe that Lewis Carroll—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise it as a point of order pertaining to this case and generally. Is it not a frequent occurrence for Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to turn their backs on the Chair and address parts of the House other than the Chair? That is, of course, out of order. Will you please draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and of right hon. and hon. Members generally to the fact that they should address the Chair and not the Bar of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who came into this House on the same day as I did—

Mr. Robert Mellish: You have done rather better than he has.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear what the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said. I have the good fortune not to hear everything. But it makes a pleasant interlude for me in the Chair if right hon. and hon. Members do look this way.

Mr. Peyton: I am charmed by your invitation, Mr. Speaker. Since you have been kind enough to say that it matters to you, I shall endeavour never to err again. But, by way of excuse, perhaps I should explain that I got that bad habit from observing the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when he was Prime Minister, whom I never copy in any other respect. I had hoped that, during the course of my remarks, I might pick up a bite from the odd minnow, but I never thought to get a whale such as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).
When I was interrupted just now, I was endeavouring to waste—[Interruption.] I find it very difficult to refrain from wasting the time of the House discussing those people who are, in my view, a sort of Lewis Carroll nightmare of the Mad Hatter's tea party, who, instead of being pleasant, are thoroughly venomous. I hope that before long the Labour Party will shed their influence and learn to behave as a respectable political party again, free of such malign influence.
The Government have once again got themselves into a thorough mess in the handling of Parliament's business. I hope that they will at least show a degree of contrition and courtesy by accepting the amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Who am I, Mr. Speaker, to intrude upon these proceedings? I must first express an interest. I have long nurtured the ambition to serve upon the Reasons Committee on the Education Bill. It was for this object that I sought election to the House and for which I remain here. There may be other ambitions which mean rather more to me.
But there is a far more important reason why this matter should not be dispatched as lightly as the Government Front Bench wishes. On several occasions in the course of this Parliament it has been necessary to assert that there are now several parties strongly represented on the Opposition Benches and that these parties have as much right to a place in the proceedings of the House as those whose leaders sit on the two Front Benches, and their exclusion from committees of all kinds is something that

the House ought not to tolerate. It was for that reason that we were prepared to see a name go forward from my own party, and would be prepared on other occasions to see names go forward from other minority parties, to ensure that on other committees, as well as on this, the minorities in this House are represented.
We have been through all this before on a number of other issues, and I had hoped that the matter was resolved. I had hoped that the House had come to agreement that we ought to ensure a system of representation on committees which genuinely reflected opinion in this House. We seemed to have reached that point, but now, quite unexpectedly, we are faced with the issue again in the particular context of the usually rather little considered occasion of the Reasons Committee on a Bill.
What we are confronted with at this time of day is a device which will, unfortunately, prevent us from discussing the merits of the case, from advancing our claims, and from hearing the Government's answer to them. The Leader of the House took the opportunity to give some indication of what is in the Government's mind in response to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), but we have not been able to explore the matter as fully as we might.
There are many issues that we should like to explore, not least because my noble Friends in another place are themselves responsible for some of the amendments upon which a discussion of reasons will take place. We therefore have a close concern in the matter.
For my part, whatever the heights of eloquence to which the Leader of the House might have wished to rise later tonight, I should have been content with a quite short debate on this matter. I am sure that the subject of my place on or absence from the Reasons Committee can be dispatched with limited argument in a short time. If we could have spent an hour on it later tonight, instead of a rather longer time discussing whether to discuss it at this time, we should have proceeded more sensibly. Why on earth not allocate a modest and reasonable period to resolving the matter instead of trying to foreclose all debate?


The end result is to spend time discussing whether to debate at all, and that is not sensible.
If there is one respect in which I would part company from the Leader of the House it is when he said that we were dealing with what had become a formality. Of course, it is true that in recent history very little attention has been attracted by the particular kind of committee which is the subject of these discussions. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman—as I ought not to need to do—that it is of formalities that many of our liberties are made. It is of things which time and time again are not mentioned and not contradicted or referred to but which on one crucial occasion become important that many fundamental liberties depend.
We all know how many times measures go through this House on the nod, without any challenge, because there is no challenge to be made, measures which on some other occasion may be the subject of challenge. We know how many procedures we have here which for most of the time go without any particular notice or any particular disturbance. But at some point, when some matter of great importance is in the minds of hon. Members, they cease to be formalities and become matters of great importance.
I therefore counsel the House never to consider any of its procedures always to be a formality. Every one of our procedures has a time and place when it becomes important. If for 300 days in the year we can treat it as a formality and let it go through with no additional trouble at all, there will be a day when we have to consider it important.
On this occasion we have had to look carefully at the issue of the Reasons Committee, and I am glad that hon. Members in parties other than my own have shared my feeling about it. The Government have not so far shown any willingness to meet us on the point at issue, although I suspect that in their deeper councils they are aware that there is a point of fairness to be granted. They have not shown any willingness so far to meet us, and in those circumstances I do not see how I can encourage my hon. Friends to vote in such a way as to preclude any debate on the merits of the issue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton

(Mr. Heffer) seems to think that there is no issue at stake, but if he found himself on the Opposition side of the House as a member of a minority party—

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to call the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) a Tory stooge? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Charges of personal abuse, as I have said before, are much to be deprecated. I am not able in this place to hear all the exchanges from below the Gangway, but I must say that interruptions of that sort are unworthy of the House.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you explain to the House whether it is a term of abuse to say that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is a Tory or a stooge?

Mr. Speaker: If I called the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) a stooge, I have no doubt that he would soon understand that it was not very complimentary.

Mr. Beith: There are times when I am glad that my range of hearing is as limited as you have admitted yours to be, Mr. Speaker, although my wit is not equal to yours. If that is the view held by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I suggest that he consults the defeated Tory candidate in my constituency, who certainly does not share it.
The issue is one of relating the procedure of the House to its membership and the composition of the parties within it. That ought to concern hon. Members in whichever part of the House they may sit, because it will affect them sooner or later.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the hon. Member clear up a point which was raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)? It occurs to me that the Leader of the House has a different Order Paper from mine. I understood the Leader of the House to say that if the motion placing the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the Committee were to be


accepted, it would put the Government in a minority position. That was what he said, I believe.
From page 13351 of today's Order Paper it seems clear to me that the acceptance of the proposition would give the Government parity, with three members of the Labour Party, two members of the Conservative Party and a member of the Liberal Party. Does the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed agree with my interpretation? If so, will he find out whether the Leader of the House has got it wrong again?

Mr. Foot: What I should have said—I apologise to the House if I did not make it clear—was parity below the Chair. It does not alter the argument that I am presenting, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. If the House agrees to the proposal for adding the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), it will give the Opposition parties a majority below the Chair.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman points to the difficulties of our proceedings. It is precisely in order to examine these complications that we should look at the next Government motion, which is explicitly designed to prevent us from debating the issue.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. We had occasion to discuss it in regard to the composition of the Committee of Selection. But we have been over this course many times. On the face of it, the simple achievement of the amendment that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) advanced last night was to bring about parity. If that presents the Government with special difficulties, why do they seek to deny themselves the opportunity to explain those difficulties to the House?
Since we are not to be given that opportunity, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment, which will ensure that the matter could be debated.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: That useful work of reference called "Erskine May" makes it quite clear that the object of a Reasons Committee is not to justify decisions of the Commons but to offer persuasion to the House of Lords

about why it should find itself in agreement with the House of Commons.
The House of Commons has a diverse composition, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) stressed. Therefore, unless the Reasons Committee reflects as accurately as possible the composition of the House, it is unlikely to do the best job of drawing up persuasive reasons why the two Houses should find themselves in agreement.
Once again the Leader of the House has let the cat out of the bag that he knows neither procedure nor his job. Assuming that this motion is passed unamended, it is clear that he believes that, if the amendment which my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will have to move later tonight without any supporting argument is carried, there will be the same parity on the Reasons Committee as there is on every Standing Committee following the Government's undertaking to ensure parity on Committees.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make a case for the Reasons Committee having a Government majority, that is a case that he must make to the House. It is not a case that is self-evident, because the Government themselves agreed to parity on Standing Committees. Moreover, the relevant Standing Order of the House lays down that Committees of the House shall reflect the composition of the House.
The Opposition raise the matter now on my right hon. Friend's amendment to the Business Motion simply because, if the Business Motion is passed unamended, we shall have no further opportunity to raise the matter.
It is not just on the Reasons Committee the appointment of which was moved last night by a Minister that the House will be denied all opportunity of debate or discussion. It is every Reasons Committee that the Government will seek to appoint this week and, indeed, for the remainder of this Session—even further than the timetable resolutions which are functioning this week and possibly next week as well, since there is no reason for believing that this Session will end next week or on any particular date.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Since the motion refers to "this Session", I am sure that my hon.


Friend will agree that, if the Government continue to deal with their business so completely incompetently, the Session could go on for several weeks, during which time the Government might lose 20 by-elections.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend has made a most valuable contribution. The longer the Session lasts, the more by-elections the Government are likely to lose.
I hope that every hon. Member is seized of the point that this debate in which we are now engaged is the last moment in time at which any hon. Member can contribute his comments or advice to the House, including the Leader of the House, although giving the Leader of the House any advice from any part of the House seems to be a singularly unrewarding occupation except in terms of extending his education in procedure. This is the last occasion on which any hon. Member will have the right which he would have but for the passage of this motion.
This is not part of the timetable resolutions. The passage of this motion unamended in no way expedites the business which is the subject of the timetable resolutions. I hope that there is no doubt about that. This is not a necessary part of the timetable resolutions achieving their task. This is a new restriction on the freedom of speech in this House which the Leader of the House has conceived within the past 24 hours, and it does him little credit.
At no stage has the Leader of the House endeavoured to justify to the House his refusal to allow hon. Members to debate this Reasons Committee appointment motion. He made no attempt to do that in moving this motion, and the reason that he did not is that he knows that even the business on which the Government rely does not depend upon the passage of this motion unamended. He is unable to say to his hon. Friends "Unless you allow this further gag on Members of the House, the Government's business cannot be completed." He is unable to say that or, rather, he is unable to say it truthfully, because the Government's timetable is in no way affected by this motion.
Why, therefore, has he done it? He has done it for exactly the same reason

as he denied petitioners the right to petition against the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. He has done it because he dare not allow reasonable argument to see the light of day. He knows perfectly well that the Government themselves deliberately delayed the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. He knows that they did not attempt to make any progress on it for a period of six weeks or more after 8th June. It was not the Opposition who held up these measures. It was not the House of Lords which held up these measures. It was the Leader of the House, who is responsible for the Government's programme on the Floor of the House and who, every Thursday, gives the House the business for the coming week.
We have to discuss the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in this context because we shall not have the opportunity to discuss the effect of this resolution on a Reasons Committee in respect of that Bill when the motion is moved for it. Therefore, we have to discuss it now.
Why do the Government want to delay the passage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, and why do they want to prevent the House from having a Committee which can reflect accurately its reasons for disagreeing with any of their Lordships' amendments? I think that the House knows why. It is because they want firms in the shipbuilding industry and in the aircraft industry to sack lots of their workers. They want to see them sacked week after week so that, eventually, if the Bill should receive the Royal Assent, the nationalised shipbuilding corporation and aircraft corporation will have labour forces which have already been slashed brutally. The Bill is not intended to save employment in those industries. It is intended as a vehicle for slashing employment.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Prime Minister said that, when nationalisation had taken place, there would have to be a rationalisation?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes, and we all know that there is only one exception to the rule that rationalisation means fewer jobs. That is in the highly paid superstructure which is invented and superimposed upon the management


structures which are already there. That is what rationalisation means in the context of nationalisation.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Then, will the hon. Gentleman explain why, during the time that the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries have been in the hands of private enterprise, the Merseyside shipyards which once employed 20,000 today employ only 3,500? Is not that a clear indication that jobs have been lost because of the inability of private enterprise to organise their industries properly?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is not an indication of anything of the kind. To the extent that these industries depend on orders coming from abroad, there will be fewer customers—

Mr. Thomas Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for this discussion to be taking place on a specific Bill, despite the fact that there is a motion before the House dealing with the whole concept?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I was about to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) to the fact that there is a motion. I hope that he will address his remarks to that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before you came into the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were discussing the fact that the debate has to encompass those debates that would have taken place but for this motion being passed unamended. If the motion is passed unamended—and it is for the benefit of the hon. Member who intervened rather than for yourself that I make this observation—the reasons for not disagreeing with their Lordships would have been able to be put before the House in a debate to appoint a Reasons Committee. If the motion before the House is passed without amendment, it will have the effect of preventing these debates and therefore preventing these arguments from being advanced. It is in the context of pointing out the merits of the argument that would have been advanced as a reason for not agreeing to the motion unamended that it is necessary to present the arguments that would have been advanced were that not

the case. The grounds for passing the motion without amendment would have to go by without being studied specifically in the House.
I do not wish to waste time in digressing in the direction in which the hon. Member invited me, because the question which his own colleagues put to me earlier was about employment. Employment in both the aircraft and shipbuilding industries and, incidentally, in the ship-repairing industry will be more dependent on the volume of overseas orders than on any other factor. The Government are forcing these great industries into nationalised corporations so that the customers can no longer choose where their order is executed. The question whether the customer would be able to choose where the order is executed was put four times running to the Minister in the Committee, but he refused to answer, because the customer will not be able to choose. Therefore, the volume of orders in each of the three industries from overseas customers is bound to be lower than would otherwise be the case, That is because they have the alternative of going to Sweden, Holland, Portugal, or even to Brazil and certainly to Japan, where they can specify who carries out the order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am at a disadvantage as I have been in the Chair only for a moment or two. It appears that the hon. Member is straying beyond the bounds of the motion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am giving examples of the arguments which it would have been in order to advance before the House decided who could suitably represent it on a Committee to draw up reasons for the Lords.
A number of undesirable consequences will follow unless my right hon. Friend's amendment is passed. Among the consequences that will not follow is frustration of the Government's business. I wish that it would, but it will not. The first consequence that will follow is that the Government will be able to pack the Reasons Committee with a Government majority, although they agree that such a majority is utterly inappropriate in Committees, which is why Standing Committees do not have a Government majority. The second consequence is that the Government will be able to pack the Committee


without having to justify it to the House and without hon. Members being able to challenge the reasons. The third consequence is that the Government will be able to exclude all the smaller Opposition parties from the Committee without those parties being able to protest or challenge them by argument.
All hon. Members who wish to advance arguments in favour of putting in reasoned resolutions will be silenced. We have been denied what would have been the most suitable vehicle—a Committee of the Whole House. That would have been able to draw up reasons which are representative of the House. Instead, we have this miserable situation which once again the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, who was once a parliamentarian, has insisted on inflicting upon the House. He is intent on denying the House of Commons the right to do its duty to the nation. I hope that he will be ashamed of himself and that the House will insist on the insertion of my right hon. Friend's amendment.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: Before entering the Chamber, I was in the Table Office and I saw the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) with a book under his arm. It was called "Freedom under Foot" by Nora Beloff. It was a thin book and should have been written on a single sheet, because the Leader of the House is trampling on the freedom of the House to come to reasonable decisions.
If words have any meaning, the words which the Leader of the House uttered earlier about the composition of the Reasons Committee were meaningless. Only when I was able to intervene in the speech by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did the Leader of the House come up with some cock and bull excuse about Members below the Chair being the members of the Reasons Committee to whom he was referring. The example set by the Leader of the House is now appealing to his hon. Friends. Yesterday, the Father of the House—of all people—suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was out of order in seeking

a Standing Order No. 9 debate. Fortunately Mr. Speaker intervened to uphold the rights of Back Benchers.
In attempting to force through the motion the Government are operating not only the guillotine, but the jackboot. They claim that they have an adequate mandate for their legislation, but if one tots up the votes at the last General Election of the parties that voted for the motion to guillotine the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and the number of votes cast for the parties that opposed it, one discovers that 11,522,752 people voted for the Labour Party, plus the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire). But 16,817,424 people voted for the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, SNP and Plaid Cymru. That situation excludes the new position resulting from the three by-elections at Woolwich, Walsall, North and Workington.
Surely that means that the other place along the corridor has every right to take account of the current support in the country for these controversial Socialist measures, particularly when the Government depend for their existence on the support of a man who was interned in Belfast for three years for being a member of the IRA. [HON. MEMBERS: "Treachery."] It seems even now—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless we can hear what the hon. Member is saying, none of us profits.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you suggesting that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is entirely in order, because I have not heard him mention the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I was suggesting was that, if I could hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying, I should be able to judge.

Mr. Adley: I was not casting any aspersions on the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am casting aspersions on the Government. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone in his own words in "The Times Guide to the House of Commons" is presumably proud of the fact that he was


interned for three years in Belfast. I am casting no aspersions on him. But if the Government with a majority of one have to rely on this particular hon. Member—I do not balk the word "honourable"—I think this is a relevant point to our debate.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) appears to be offering additional succour to the Government. I do not wish to enter into the merits of that argument except to say that occasionally when the right hon. Gentleman makes speeches on racial issues he is roundly and vehemently criticised by members of the present Government who seem very anxious to have his support now. Any port in a storm, indeed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the amendment.

Mr. Adley: I have the amendment before me, and I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is at the nub of this argument, in that unless we are allowed to discuss who might be properly made a member of this Committee the whole debate falls to the ground. The Government's view may well be that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) would be a better member of the Committee than the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Therefore, this is a very relevant matter in this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be the view of the hon. Member, but that is not my impression of what the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) was saying.

Mr. Adley: As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) reflects the general impression which I was trying—inadequately—to convey to the House.

Mr. Ridley: If my hon. Friend were to propose that, instead of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), the

right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) were to be a member of the Committee, surely the Leader of the House would accept that with alacrity after last night's news.

Mr. Adley: That is a very interesting intervention by my hon. Friend to which I should like to give consideration and I may be moved to move a manuscript amendment to that effect later in the afternoon. I should like further to consider that point.
On the motion, we are discussing the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, and that lies at the nub of this debate—the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. The fact of the matter is that, certainly on the Dock Work Regulation Bill, which has been called "the Jack Jones Benefit Bill", the Government are clearly influenced by Mr. Jack Jones's views of another place. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, that the House of Lords is a far more legitimate part of the British political scene—I stress the word "political"—than is the Trades Union Congress.
If we in this place are to discuss—that is the nub of the motion—the freedom of the House of Commons and of the British people, I think that I speak for a number of my constituents when I say that they regard the House of Lords as a far safer guardian of the freedom of Parliament and of the individual than are Mr. Jack Jones and those whom he purports to represent.

Mr. Martin Flannery: They are never on our side.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Observations from a sedentary position are not in order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the House of Lords as a democratic assembly. It has an inbuilt Tory majority which on no occasion supports the Labour Party. If that is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of democracy he is entitled to such an opinion, but democrats in general do not share that opinion of that undemocratic body.

Mr. Adley: This country has a two-Chamber Parliament. It is up to the Government to come to the House of


Commons at any time, as no doubt the Lord President of the Council would like to do, and to present a motion to abolish another place. Unless and until that happens we shall have a two-Chamber Parliament. That is the point I was seeking to make and it is a point which the arrogance of certain hon. Members opposite causes them constantly to ignore.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Would my hon. Friend accept that by their actions this Government are in danger of making the other place more representative of public opinion than they are?

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Time after time in the past two years Mr. Speaker has had to sit there unable, even if willing, to comment adversely on motions which have appeared on the Order Paper. As recently as the day before yesterday he told me that he had absolutely no control over the Order Paper of the House of Commons. It is, therefore, perfectly open to the Government to table a motion stipulating, let us say, that no Member may speak or vote in the Chamber unless he is a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party or a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Only the conventions of the House prevent the Government from doing that. That was the point that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was seeking to make.
We depend greatly upon the conventions of the House. I do not want to see a closed shop enforced in the House of Commons. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I shall fight, fight and fight again for the freedom of Members of Parliament.

4.36 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: I do not wish to prolong the debate on this procedural matter. I wish, as one who has been a Member of Parliament for over 25 years, to say that the mess in which the Government now find themselves stems from the attitude of the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons. It dates back to 26th May when he tried to circumvent Mr. Speaker's ruling that the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill was a hybrid

Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had then tried to accommodate all parts of the House, the Government would not be in the mess they are in now and we should not be having a debate such as this.
Only yesterday the Prime Minister himself said that the one problem facing the country and facing this Government should be how to tackle the desperate problem of growing inflation and that everything else was secondary. How right he was. One of the most secondary things the Government are doing is to try to rush through five Bills which are totally irrelevant to the situation facing the country.
If only the Lord President of the Council would remember that he is speaking as Leader of the House and not as the ringmaster of the Labour Party, even at this late hour he could rise and announce that two of the Bills could wait for a later time and could be introduced then. Chat is what the country requires. None of these measures will help to solve the financial problems now facing us. It is up to the Leader of the House to recognise this and to try to bring about some accommodation between the Government, the principal Opposition party and the minor Opposition parties and see whether we cannot get, not necessarily concord, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) referred to it, but at least some form of co-operation. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to speak now for the House of Commons and not just for the Labour Party.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This business motion introduces a much larger and more serious precedent than may at first sight appear and portends a very considerable erosion of the rights of the House and of hon. Members. I am surprised and regretful and puzzled as to the reasons why the Government should have thought it necessary to introduce it.
The Lord President is quite right in saying that it is a traditional and proper part of our procedure to give reasons for disagreement and that the method of doing so is by the appointment of a Committee to draw up the reasons. But I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, in the event of the House requiring


to resolve the question of the membership of any of its Committees for any purpose, it is the function of the House as a whole to do that job and that the motion which must be put before the House for that purpose is debatable and amendable.
There is no precedent yet for what we are being asked to do. We are establishing that, when the House sets up a Committee, the membership of that Committee shall not be debatable but only votable. Make no mistake that the pressures, which are well understood, are such that this case will not be firmly distinguished and discriminated from other cases. This will be a precedent for the proposition that the House can nominate a Committee by a motion which is not debatable but only votable. I venture to prophesy that it will not be long before the convenience to the managers of such a precedent will be recognised and followed.
The House, rightly or wrongly, and narrowly, has come to a decision to limit the time which it spends on considering Lords amendments on the Bills to which its resolutions apply. If the right hon. Gentleman could argue that there was a possibility of the House frustrating that decision, he would have some ground, some case, for a Business Motion of this sort. However, he is in no such danger.
Let us suppose that the motion, which stands as the second Order of the Day, is allowed to be debated, that an amendment to it is duly selected, by you, Mr. Speaker, and that it is debated. The debate is such that the Chair has the power and discretion, and would know when to exercise the discretion, to keep it within reasonable limits, having regard to the narrow nature of the subject matter. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman may well have been coming to the conclusion that the debate on this motion, where it stood upon the Orders of the Day, might well have been more brief than the debate which is taking place now. However, in any case there is no threat to the transaction of his business that the right hon. Gentleman has to apprehend from the debating as well as the voting upon such a motion as this. It is that fact which makes all the more serious the erosion, which we are invited to attempt, into the rights of the House.
Therefore, I hope that the Lord President will recognise that this kind of motion is not only not necessary to facilitate his purpose but will have the opposite effect. In addition, it is almost bound to be used to deny the House the right of debating propositions upon which it is to vote. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: When the Leader of the House moved the motion I wondered whether he realised the point of principle with which the House was concerned. When he went on to say that if he accepted the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) concerning membership of the first Committee to draw up reasons for disagreing to certain Lords amendments it would turn the parity which existed into a majority against the Government, I thought for a moment that it was because he did not appreciate what he was doing. But it is clear from the intervention he made during the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the right hon. Gentleman realised full well what he was doing. He said then that he was suggesting setting up not a Committee that had parity but one which had parity below the Chair, as he described it. I do not know whether the Leader of the House was implying that the chairman of the Committee would be in some way in a similar situation to that of a Chairman of a Standing Committee. I see that he shakes his head. If he was not making that point I cannot understand the purpose of his comment. Presumably the member of the Committee who is elected Chairman will be voting in that Committee in the same way as any other member. The Lord President is creating not a Committee of parity but a Committee which has a majority on the Government side.

Mr. George Cunningham: I presume that the Committee would be like a Select Committee of the House, where the Chairman votes only if there is a tie between the other members. Therefore, for normal voting purposes the Government would not have a majority if one of the Government members were Chairman.

Mr. Carlisle: As far as I can see from "Erskine May" and the Standing Orders, there are no rules laid down on the working of this Committee. It is clear—I should have thought that the Leader of the House would accept that this is right—that the membership of that Committee should reflect the composition of the House, as the Standing Orders require for Committees dealing with Public Bills. I realise that they relate only to Standing Committees, but it seems to be the nearest analogy to a Committee of this nature.
The Leader of the House said that this matter could be dealt with without debate because it was a formality. In many circumstances the Committee to give reasons may well be a formality. However, in the case of these Bills the Committee will be asked to formulate reasons for rejecting amendments without their ever having been debated on the Floor of the House, due to the guillotine. Therefore, I cannot see how it can be said that the Committee which has to formulate reasons, vote on them, amend them, reject them, or agree to them is a mere formality. It is much more than a formality. Therefore, I think it important that that Committee should be properly set up and should reflect the composition of the House.
As like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I cannot understand what the Leader of the House is afraid of. If he would allow debate on the motion which is very narrow, he would find that it did not go on for all that long and that it had no effect on Government business. It can only be that he is not prepared to allow debate and is not prepared to hear the arguments against what he proposes to do because he knows that there is no justification for the Committee he is attempting to set up.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: What is at the heart of this argument is, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, what is at the very heart of Parliament. Parliament is often referred to, somewhat contemptuously, as a talking shop, but this proposition would close the shop. It would shutter the shop and stop it from even talking about its own procedures.
I suspect that the motion is without precedent in that it is intended to pro-

hibit us from discussing our own affairs. It is as though the right hon. Gentleman had guillotined the debate on a report of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He would like to.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not know whether he would like to do so today, but no doubt after a week or two the right hon. Gentleman will have convinced himself of some democratic argument for doing so.
The problem is that we have now become accustomed to procedural motions designed to truncate the rights of Members in opposing or even questioning the Executive. At present the Opposition Benches are filled mainly with Conservatives, but that is a situation which even the most optimistic Labour Member must know will not last for ever.
I urge Labour Members who think of themselves primarily as parliamentarians as opposed to members of the Executive—or those who have had it made plain to them that they will not become members of the Executive—to realise that before long they will be suffering from the difficulties that Oppositions always face in making their arguments heard in the country. They will then no doubt take a different view.
Curiously, not one of them has so far put a point of view. They seem to regard a majority of one as being sufficient not just to get their business, but to get it without argument or discussion.
The Government have tabled the motion because they do not want us to discuss it or the amendment concerning the composition of the Committee which will discuss the reasons for disagreeing with their Lordships. We therefore face a twofold problem. The first and most important aspect is that to which I have already alluded, the procedural problem and the problem of whether the Executive will allow the House the right to discuss its own affairs. The second aspect of the problem concerns the suitability of the Committee drawn up.
We are surprised that the Government, having to rely as they do on four splinter group Members who sit on their side of the House, should consider that they have a majority. We would not find that a convincing argument unless those Members actually took the Labour Whip. Even


some members of this Government would hesitate to offer the Labour Whip to at least one of those Members upon whose votes they rely to get their business through the House.
The Lord President said that this matter was only a formality, but let him not take formalities of this sort for granted. If the formal powers we have are taken for granted, we shall have to exercise them more frequently so that they are not allowed to rust or be corroded by the corruption of misuse or disuse.
The Lord President is irritated by Parliament and his irritation is not a lovely sight to see. It would be even more unlovely to see this Parliament's rights to discuss its own affairs truncated not only on this occasion but in future when the Lord President brings his motions before the House without even bothering to argue the case for them.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I am not surprised that the Lord President should at this moment be leaving the Chamber, in view of my hon. Friend's speech. His whole thesis, such as it was, has been torn to shreds.
He began this debate by trying to maintain that the action of the Opposition in trying to add a name to the membership of the Committee was unprecedented. It might be rare, but it is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the motion which he has put before the House today, and he has given no argument for attempting to create this precedent.
The amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is rare because the position in which the House finds itself is rare. Even within the political lifetime of anybody here there cannot have been an occasion when a Government have attempted to force through legislation against the objections of the House of Lords when that Government have not had a majority of their own party in the House of Commons. Since that is unprecedented, it is therefore wholly appropriate that a slightly antique device should have been reinstated to try to deal with the problem of Lords' amendments and the reasons for objections to them.
I make one comment with great sadness. Perhaps I may declare a rather oblique interest as a director of a publishing firm which is proud to have the Leader of the House as one of its authors. It is a matter of very great sadness that he should have sold down the river his previous devotion to Parliament and, in particular, to the House of Commons. I never thought I should hear him telling the House, as he did not so long ago, that he would curtail debate in this House for the sake of the House of Commons. There is no House of Commons interest in curtailing debate in this House. The interest of the House lies in the opposite direction, in having a full debate. The Lord President has other interests at heart when he seeks to curtail debate.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman become the great poseur of the House? Why has he adopted this stance? I think that it may be, in view of his recent remarks to a Fabian meeting in Cambridge, that he has been so carried away by parliamentary democracy Indian-style that he thinks it is a better brand than the democracy that hitherto he has espoused. No doubt in due course we shall see proposals for the incarceration of journalists and the suspension of elections. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasim for Mrs. Gandhi's democracy bodes ill for the House of Commons.
But I suspect that there may be another reason why he is attempting at every opportunity to curtail debate in the House. It is that he has been seduced by a new doctrine, the doctrine of trade union infallibility. The most reactionary cardinal who ever lived has never promoted the cause of papal infallibility with the dedication with which the right hon. Gentleman promotes the cause of trade union infallibility.
One of the oddities about his belief in trade union infallibility—which means the infallibility of certain important trade union leaders—is that it has just been repudiated by rank and file trade union members themselves. That is what happened at Workington and Walsall, but the right lion. Gentleman still holds to his belief in trade union infallibility. It must have caused him great pain and distress to discover that that doctrine has been shown to be incompatible with his belief


in Parliament and the House of Commons, although no doubt initially he thought it was compatible. He has now had to make a choice between the two, and regrettably he has not chosen Parliament. He has chosen trade union infallibility, and that is the doctrine to which he now holds. That is the great sadness that lies behind the debate and behind many of the speeches that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman.
Behind all this lies the question of what the relationship should be between the House of Lords and this House. I do not pretend for a moment that it is a satisfactory relationship at present. Of course it is not. But if the right hon. Gentleman has any proposals for reforming the House of Lords, let him put them to the House. We shall judge them on their merits, Maybe something better could be devised but the right hon. Gentleman has not done so.
If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to do that, and if it is a question of defiance of the will of the people that Labour Members below the Gangway speak of so often, let the question of the relationship between the two Houses be put to the people and let the people choose in a General Election. We are ready for that and it is the Government who are not.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think it best to avoid personal attacks on the Lord President choose to speak more to his colleagues below the Gangway than to the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Skinner: I am not sure that I want to listen—[Interruption.] I am not sure that I want to listen to any more of this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not address the House from the centre of the Floor.

Mr. Griffiths: The point I want to make above all else is that we live at a time when parliamentary democracy is at risk across the whole world. It is at risk in this country and in many others. The threats to our parliamentary democracy do not arise only from the right hon. Gentleman. All of us know that power is seeping away from this place to big business, big unions, big media and big civil services.

Mr. Powell: And to Brussels.

Mr. Griffiths: And to Brussels, as my right hon. Friend says. We are witnessing a serious erosion of the powers of Parliament. This debate, procedural as it may be, must be seen in the context—I am sure that all of us as Members of this House are deeply concerned about the process of parliamentary democracy starting to wither away—of several weeks during which, for reasons that need not be debated at length, the Government have found it necessary to curtail debate in the House not once but many times. They have seen fit to take amendments that were considered necessary by more than one party in another place and to spurn them out of hand without consideration and without giving reasons for their rejection. We now come to the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and if the motion be carried we are not even to have an effective debate on the reasons for the House disagreeing with the Lords amendments.
I am prepared to give the Leader of the House credit for not wishing to do what he has done. He conceives it to be his duty to get the Government business through. Other Leaders have taken a similar view in the past, and no doubt they will do so in the future. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the number and the intensity of the guillotines and gags has reached a point at which there must be concern in all parts of the House about what is happening to free speech and to Parliament.
I tried to ask myself why the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to do this to Parliament. Like many of my hon. Friends I do not believe that it was necessary for him to do it in that the Government's business would otherwise have been frustrated. No one believes that the small Committee that sits in a small room and decides in a very few minutes what message to send back to the Lords would, whatever its composition, have frustrated the Government's business.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil moved his amendment last night, I believe that the Leader of the House was irritated. Perhaps he was tired. I believe that he grew angry and decided that he would show my right hon. Friend and the House who was


boss. He did that, and put the motion upon the Order Paper. I believe that was the first reason for his acting in this way, but perhaps a further reason was his conception of his duties as Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman appears to believe that his first duty is to get through the Government's business regardless of the procedures of the House, even though, as we all know, the procedures are designed to safeguard Parliament itself and the rights of free speech in our country. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government's business must come first, and that the procedures of the House must take second place.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The right hon. Gentleman said that they must take no place.

Mr. Griffiths: No place, as my hon. Friend says. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman conceives it to be his duty to get through the business regardless of whether there is adequate discussion. In so doing, I am bound to tell him, he has destroyed the reputation that he had built up in this place over many years as a civil libertarian and as a great servant of Parliament itself. He has many times in the past held the House by his oratory. If I may say so, he has written and spoken magnificently on the side of civil rights. But power has corrupted him. I fear that the absolute power that he now seeks will corrupt him absolutely. That is the position in which we now find ourselves.

Mr. George Cunningham: In order to make the debate a bit real, will the hon. Gentleman give us an example of one reason on one Bill of the type that is cooked up in that little room and sent up to the House of Lords? That is what it is all about. Will he read out one reason on any Bill of his choosing?

Mr. Griffiths: I think that the hon. Gentleman, rather characteristically, has missed the point. He has not done so narrowly. He has missed it by a mile. He frequently does, so I shall leave him in his capacity for error.
I speak only to the Leader of the House as I do not wish to take the time of this place. It is tragic that power should have corrupted one who felt so deeply, wrote so eloquently and spoke so fiercely about the rights of Parliament.

What he has done as Leader of the House of Commons, not Fuehrer of the Reichstag, is to put Government before Parliament. I hope that he appreciates the significance of that. He has put Government before Parliament and party before country. In so doing he has forfeited any confidence he might have enjoyed in this place.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has moved our affairs a little further to the point at which people outside the House will finally lose confidence in Parliament itself. If there cannot be free speech here, there can be free speech nowhere. The right hon. Gentleman today, wittingly or otherwise, has put one more nail in the coffin of Parliament in this country.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have listened carefully to Opposition Members, and apart from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I do not think that it has been worth listening to any of them.
A question is raised that is interesting from my point of view—namely, whether the motion is essential from the point of view of getting through the business. I do not know. The Government feel that it is necessary. I trust that in reply the point made by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman did not raise many of the other erroneous issues raised by other hon. Gentlemen. For example, he did not make the point that my right hon. Friend was deliberately trying to undermine and erode the rights of Parliament. That was a ludicrous statement. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that the motion could do that. I do not think that he made a personal attack on my right hon. Friend by suggesting that he was intentionally doing that. That is precisely what many Opposition Members have been attempting to do this afternoon. They have referred to my right hon. Friend's past writings and statements as though in those days he was the white, shining angel of the Conservative Party. That was not how I understood their views on my right hon. Friend today.

Mr. Flannery: Aneurin Bevan.

Mr. Heffer: When Aneurin Bevan was alive, he, just like my right hon. Friend, was the devil incarnate. No doubt when the time comes for my right hon. Friend to pass over to the other side he, like Aneurin Bevan, will overnight become a saint and we shall hear many quotations from his speeches and writings.
I should like to recall to the House the writings of Sir Winston Churchill relating to the Lords. I do not know whether Opposition Members have read the very interesting book by Sir Winston Churchill published in 1909 when the Liberal Government were trying to get a Finance Bill through based on what was known as the People's Budget. I should like to recall to hon. Gentlemen, especially to the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, what Sir Winston actually said. As a matter of fact, I trust that in a few days the quotation will be printed somewhere. It is interesting to find out what Sir Winston Churchill said about the character and nature of the other place. He said that their Lordships were in the main very narrow, ordinary run of the mill people who supported the Tory Party.
The Opposition are again raising this issue as a great matter of principle when in fact they are trying to stop the Government's legislative programme being carried into effect. Of course, it is always a matter of great principle, as it was in the days of the Liberal Government in 1909. The suggestion was that people and the national interest had to be protected The same argument has been developed again today.

Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: Certainly.

Mr. Churchill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving publicity to any Churchill publication. Is he aware that, since 1909, there have been two Parliament Acts, the most recent of which was of the Labour Party's making? It is that state of affairs which has presented us with the present situation. While I am delighted for him to go on giving plugs to the Churchill family—I am not sure whether that was his purpose—will he now address himself to the point at issue?

Mr. Heffer: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. At that time the other place was voting against Finance Bills. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 were passed because on both occasions, when progressive Governments were trying to get through progressive legislation, the inbuilt Tory majority in the House of Lords tried to stop that legislation from going through. That is what the argument is about. On every occasion, the Tories elevated Members—

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that both you and share a devotion to free speech, but are the Parliament Act 1911 and advertising, for the Churchill Foundation's books anything to do with the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: My difficulty is that they are what in Wales are called second cousins to the subject. Other hon. Members have roamed rather widely.

Mr. Heffer: I want to bring my speech to a conclusion very quickly. I shall ignore the typically snide remarks made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).

Mr. John Mendelson: Uriah Heep.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Chingford is better known among some of my hon. Friends as the Uriah Creep of the House of Commons, so I shall ignore his remarks.
The House is fully aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not and has no intention of trying to curtail democracy. My right hon. Friend has not defended the curtailment of democracy in the Indian sub-continent. Indeed, he replied more than adequately to the point made in a letter in the New Statesman.
The Opposition wish to try to get over to the general public that the Labour Party is out to destroy our democratic traditions. They know that is untrue. But, like the Hitlerite regime, the Opposition think that if they repeat it often enough sufficient people will actually believe it. That is their intention.
Parliamentary democracy will be safeguarded much more by Labour Members who have consistently and genuinely fought for parliamentary democracy throughout the entire world and have based themselves on the Chartists and others who consistently fought for parliamentary democracy in this country against the Tory Party at different times in our history.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I think it would be inappropriate if the arrogant discourtesy of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in leaving the Chamber as he did and treating you, Mr. Speaker, our custodian of parliamentary honour, as he did, was not mentioned this afternoon. I think it shows the disregard and disdain for Parliament which the hon. Member has, and I believe that the hon. Members for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) and Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) also showed the same disdain by following him out. I do not believe that they represent the body of opinion of Parliament as a whole.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to say "Get out your swastika"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The language in the House is deteriorating. Did the hon. Member say that?

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I will gladly withdraw my remark, but is it in order for the hon. Member for Harrow. West (Mr. Page) to make jackbooted remarks, complaining about my getting up and leaving the Chamber? I bowed to the Chair, Mr. Speaker. We are not yet living in a jackbooted society governed by the hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we could now restore ourselves to proper order. I noticed that both the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) left the Chamber and bowed to the Chair as they left.

Mr. Page: I do not wish to continue—

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friends left

the Chamber in a proper orderly manner and bowed to the Chair, should not the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) withdraw his imputation that they did not do so?

Mr. Page: I was not particularly referring to whether the hon. Member for Bolsover and the other two hon. Members bowed or not. My understanding was that the hon. Members for Luton, West and Feltham and Heston marched out in sympathy with the hon. Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very' anxious for us to get back to the motion. [Interruption.] I do not need any help. I think that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) is aware that his remarks were misconstrued to apply to two other hon. Members who left the Chamber in an orderly and peaceful manner.

Mr. Page: Of course, on your advice, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the imputation that they did not bow and that they intended discourtesy to you. However, I feel that the actions of the Leader of the House since he became Leader have encouraged hon. Members to show disregard and disdain for the old traditions of the House, and that is unfortunate.
When the Leader of the House was a Back-Bench Member below the Gangway—and I did not agree with him politically, but I felt that he was always a defender of the rights of Parliament—he once teased one of my hon. Friends by saying that he was the first navigator in history to run into both Scylla and Charybdis in one journey. He is now behaving rather like a third-rate travel agent offering his hon. Friends a package tour to some Socialist Shangri-La and finding that the aircraft crash-lands at both Sodom and Gomorrah on the way.
We are discussing why the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward this motion today. I think the key lies in the last couple of lines which say that the question shall be decided forthwith after 10 o'clock without debate. The reason that is necessary is that the Government have been forced into a state of total disarray and do not command a majority over the whole House. As a parliamentary general, the right hon. Gentleman has become Napoleon Blown-apart. He is in desperate need of a reinforcement of


troops. No wonder the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) was cheered when he came here on Monday at the head of the great army of nearly 5,000 constituents who had supported him the previous Thursday.
Then, of course, the Government can rely on the well-informed and patriotic voting of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire), and also, sadly enough, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who was my right hon. Friend but who has now nailed the Red Flag to his Ulster mast. He is someone who could give very good advice to the Government in managing their business, but I wish he did not propose to give it so wholeheartedly.
The Leader of the House seems to have only two parliamentary tactics—the guillotine and the gag. He is removing free speech and free action from the House. I wish he had the decency to accept the amendment today as one small step back to parliamentary respectability.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned that throughout the world parliamentary democracy is under threat. I think that hon. Members, in the course of circus proceedings such as those we are seeing this afternoon, might take note of the fact that we are not in secret session and that the public are observing our going through this ridiculous and childish charade. If parliamentary democracy ever gets the boot in this country, it will be because of the kind of thing we have seen this afternoon. We have an obligation to conduct our affairs at least as reasonably intelligently as moderately advanced children. It is high time that more hon. Members were prepared to expose themselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, that is a jolly good joke. One could not get a laugh with it in a circus, but one can in the House of Commons. It is time hon. Members were prepared to expose themselves to the risk of being accused of being sanctimonious by telling the House what it should damned well be told—that it does not conduct its affairs in a fitting way for a national legislature but more in the manner of a kindergarten.
Listening to the antics today, one would think that an undebatable motion was unheard of in the procedure of the House of Commons. There is hardly any procedure which is unheard of in the House of Commons, because we have never reviewed our procedures rapidly or sensibly enough for them not to contain the most grotesque anachronisms. Undebatable motions are an inherent and common feature of our procedure. We do it nearly every day. Any day on which we have business that we want to discuss after 10 o'clock and dispose of, even if it is opposed we have the normal suspension motion that is put without debate because the House, in one of its few lucid intervals, decided that the case for and against that proposition was sufficiently obvious and it would be possible to vote on the matter and let the majority have its way without all the case for any against having to be put again. The House in one of those lucid intervals also recognised that if it did not do that hon. Members who wanted only to filibuster would use the occasion to do so. I should do that if there was something to which I was opposed and if the procedure of the House allowed me to do it.
Undebatable motions are not unusual. The question is whether this kind of motion is one that it is legitimate to put down as undebatable. What is it that we are talking about? We are talking about the composition of the silly little Committee that sits in a room not far from this Chamber after our debates when there is disagreement between the two Houses in order to point out the reasons for the disagreement.
It has been suggested that that Committee ought to have on it a larger representation of the Opposition parties. What would that mean? It would mean that after a majority had defeated a Lords amendment, the responsibility for expressing the reasons why it had defeated it would rest with the minority who had voted the opposite way. The House of Commons does many stupid things, but there ought to be a limit, and that would be nonsense.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cunningham: No, I will not
What are the reasons that are stated to the House of Lords? The whole process of stating reasons to the House of Lords is a total anachronism. The other place does not pay a blind bit of attention to what is said, and it would be very stupid if it did.
I gave the House two examples from the Industry (Amendment) Bill last month. There was one Lords amendment that would not have allowed nationalised industries to come into the private manufacturing sector. The reason given for rejecting the amendment was
because it is wrong that the National Enterprise Board should be prevented from extending public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry.
No doubt that was very enlightening for their Lordships. It was an important bit of work, and we ought to give a lot of attention to deciding what kind of Committee should draft those words.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose—

Mr. Cunningham: I will give way in a moment.
The Committee gave another reason. It was
because the power of the National Enterprise Board to form bodies corporate should not be fettered.
The question was whether it should be fettered. The reason was that it should not be fettered. Can anyone suggest that this is a serious part of our procedure?

Mr. Onslow: It is helpful to have from the hon. Gentleman's penetrating mind an analysis of the fatuity of the reasons set out by the Committee on which the Government have a majority. I am sure that in their consideration of the reasons sent to them, their Lordships will be interested to know what his penetrating mind has detected. Can the hon. Gentleman say why there are Opposition Members on this Committee at all?

Mr. Cunningham: I can. It is because the House on this aspect of our proceedings, as on nearly all others, has not for centuries given its tiny mind to the subject. That is the only reason why the provision is there. The hon. Gentleman knows that that kind of reason and that kind of Committee exists whichever party is in power. Let us admit

that the public are misled. Let us admit to them that this is a farce and that this is only a motion to delay proceedings so that the scheduled six hours of debate will take place from 6 o'clock to 12 o'clock, instead of from 4 o'clock to 10 o'clock.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Foot: May I ask for the permission of the House to speak a second time?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman does not need the permission of the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you calling the Lord President so that the debate is now concluded and no other hon. Members will be permitted to take part?

Mr. Speaker: I called the Minister because he rose in his place. I cannot say now that the debate is concluded. We shall have to wait and see.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Lord President said in his first speech that he would seek to wind up the debate at the end, but there are many hon. Members who wish to speak. I have sat here since 3.30 p.m. without leaving the Chamber once, whereas the right hon. Gentleman has frequently been out of the Chamber. The debate is clearly not finished. Why is the Lord President seeking to wind it up?

Mr. Clement Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been a number of speeches from this side of the House, but only one from the Government side. There are now two Privy Councillors rising in their places to speak. Would it not make for a more elevating debate to hear their contributions.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Lord President is to reply to all the contributions in this debate and you call further hon. Members to speak, is it your intention to call the Lord President for a third time?

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I think that he would need the permission of the House.

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having called me on this occasion, and I thank you for it.
I have listened to almost every sentence that has been uttered in the debate. I left the Chamber for half a minute, or a minute. I have heard the rest of the debate and I agree that I have a case to answer.
I do not wish to depreciate the contributions made by others, but those who have listened to the debate will, I am sure, agree that the most formidable case that I have to answer was that made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and I shall seek to answer what he said. I hone also to answer the case made by others.
I repudiate any suggestion that by what we are proposing we are injuring or impairing the legitimate rights of the House. I believe that we are seeking to protect them, and it is in that way that I approach the debate.
I turn first to the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and underline what I said to him before. I am not sure whether in some of his remarks he was referring to some other discussion about the composition of the Committee of Selection, the composition of other Committees, and the representations that he and his party made on that subject, and which were made by other parties. I believe that were solved that question satisfactorily in the interests of the whole House—I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that—and that we made an arrangement that was acceptable to the whole House and to the minority parties in accepting their rights.
If there is a distinction in this case I should like to elaborate to the hon Gentleman why I think that distinction has to be made. It is not because I am saying that minority parties in this House have no right to be represented on Select Committees—of course I am not saying that—and already by our actions we have proved more eloquently than any words could do that we accept the case that the hon. Gentleman and others made on that aspect of the matter.
I wish to stress what would be the effect of the proposal incorporated in the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I am

not criticising the Opposition for what they are seeking to do, but I should like to say what I think would be the consequence of what they are doing. What was intended was an elaboration of what has been an entirely formal procedure—so formal that no provision is made in Standing Orders for the appointment of such Committees.
This is an elaboration—exploitation might be an even stronger word to use—of what is there. Such an elaboration should not be made without examining what is proposed. What is proposed in the Government motion is, in our belief, designed to preserve the present practice of the House. If we were to alter the present practice—that would be the consequence of accepting the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Yeovil—we would erode that present practice. That should be done only after much more consideration, possibly by the Sessional Committee on Procedure.
What we are proposing is a Committee of five. The extent of the change is highlighted by the fact that the Clerks have not had to turn their minds to this problem before. I am advised by the Clerks that the rules of procedure applicable to Select Committee are also applied to these Committees. Under those rules the Chairman of such a Committee would have only a casting vote. Assuming, therefore, that a Government Member is called to the Chair in the Disagreeing Committee, or whatever one likes to call it, that leaves parity of Government and others below the Chair. I believe that is all that hon. Gentlemen opposite, or Members of the minority parties or the Liberal Party, can reasonably ask for in such circumstances.
If we were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal the Government would be in a minority below the Chair. Partly for the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), that would be an absurdity. It would be such an absurdity, were such a position to arise, that there would be no guarantee that further absurdities would not be created. This Committee, which has solely been a formality in the past, could be transformed into something different. That would be the consequence of accepting the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for


Yeovil. If that were the case, then, far from preserving the present position in relation to these matters, it might be transformed.
I turn to the remarks of the right hon Member for Down, South. If we accepted the amendment we would be transforming the nature of these Committees. We would turn them from the formality which they have been for centuries into something quite different. That is the first reason for rejecting the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not know whether he wants to intervene now or wait until after I have dealt with some of his other arguments.

Mr. Powell: Surely, in arguing the case against the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) being added to this Committee, the Lord President is eloquently doing exactly what the motion seeks to prevent the House from doing.

Mr. Foot: I said that this was not the only argument to be deployed against the right hon. Gentleman. That is why it might have been better if he had reserved his intervention until later. There are, additional arguments which sustain the present situation. So far nearly every one seems to be on my side. What I am saying is that if the amendment were carried, and if the composition of this previously formal Committee were to be changed and the Government were put into a minority, that might mean that the nature of the Committee itself would be transformed.

Mr. Adley: If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the Chairman being a Government Chairman—and being deprived of a vote—and if he wishes to maintain the spirit of harmony which he talked about earlier, one way of achieving it would be to have one of the non-Government Members as Chairman.

Mr. Foot: That would be a further transformation of the Committee and would be quite a different arrangement. What we are seeking to do is to preserve the present situation of this formal Committee in exactly the same way that it has operated for about 300 years. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are proposing is a major transformation of the status of this Committee, which I believe it would be wrong for the House to undertake.

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that on the General Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure there are four Government Members and four Tory Members. That means that the Chairman, who is a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman's party, on taking the Chair is in the exact position which the Lord President mentioned. Yet this Sub-Committee has been in existence for years in its present form and it works perfectly. If the Lord President quotes the example of Select Committees why does he not accept the example of this particular Sub-Committee?

Mr. Foot: What I am seeking to do is preserve the operation of this Committee in the form in which it has operated hitherto. What has been proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite would run the risk—or invite the possibility—of changing the nature of these Committees. The onus is on those hon. Gentlemen who want to make this change. The Government are proposing to preserve the operation of these Committees in the way in which they have operated before.

Mr. Lawson: Would the Lord President give way?

Mr. Foot: No, I must get on, and the hon. Gentleman has made his speech.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that we would be silencing the amount of debate. But for about 300 years this Committee has been regarded as a pure formality and there has never been anything which could be regarded as a debate on the matter. This form of setting up such a Committee to express disagreement with the House of Lords dates from about 1693. I am glad that even in 1693 there was disagreement with the House of Lords. From that time until now, although there has been a possibility of debate—and although there may have been one or two occasions on which some question was asked—it has never been regarded by any Opposition, minority or majority party as a requirement for maintaining the opportunities and rights of this House that there should be debates on this motion.
Therefore the elaborate claims which have been built up that I am seeking to silence debates which normally take place are not true. For more than 300 years


there have been no debates and I doubt whether for the next 300 years there will be further debates. We shall be left in the same situation as we were in before if the motion is passed. What I am saying is that the motion makes no practical difference to what has been the existing custom.
I would give the right hon Member for Down, South a third answer. We had a similar timetable motion a year or so ago. It was assumed, rightly or wrongly, that that timetable motion covered the motion in respect of this Committee. Mr. Speaker gave a ruling—and the ruling in this aspect of the matter from Mr. Speaker is conclusive—that this timetable motion does not cover the reference to the Committee. That does not alter the fact that there have been a number of occasions on which a timetable motion itself has been thought to cover this reference, as well as other aspects of the timetable motion, and that in itself also denied discussion of this proposal.
One of the right hon. Gentleman's fears was that if the motion were accepted it could be taken as a precedent and used to forbid debates on the setting up of other Committees. I understand his anxiety, but for the reasons that I have already given and that I believe are apparent to anyone who examines the history of the matter, there is a great distinction between the two. That distinction goes back once again to the essential fact that these Committees have always been regarded as formalities.
Of course the House must always look carefully at any proposals for altering the way in which these matters are dealt with, and the House has been properly exercising that right today. But my claim is sustained by much more formidable arguments even than those produced by the right hon. Member for Down, South, who unwittingly has joined those who wish to transform the situation by a side wind.
I am not complaining because the Opposition seek to do so. We are told that we must not imagine, that we must not have such sinister suppositions in our minds as to believe, that they would in any sense use this change in our procedures to interfere with the Bills at present going through the House—

Mr. David James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you not rule earlier that it would be for your convenience if the Minister at the Dispatch Box were to address the Chair?

Mr. Foot: If I was not addressing you properly, Mr. Speaker, I apologise, of course.
I was saying—I think that it is a perfectly legitimate comment—that it would be a change if we were to adopt the Opposition's proposals. I am told that of course they would not dream of using such a development to assist them in preventing these other Bills from going through. The right hon. Member for Down. South said that there would be no possibility for any loss from the Government's point of view. But there could be if the debates on the setting up of the Committee were used as an opportunity for a further major debate and vote on these matters. That would be to transform our procedures in the middle of the game, and it is the Opposition who are proposing measures which could change this Committee.
The Opposition say—one of their legal representatives was very strong on this point—that this must no longer be a formality, that a stronger Committee was needed. They therefore suggest altering the composition of the Committee to give the Opposition a majority in the votes in it. They also ask us to believe that in the debates on these matters they would in no sense seek to filibuster to try to affect the major Bills. They are asking a lot in asking us to believe that.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman should be under no misunderstanding. He has twice suggested that I would do something to facilitate the passage of these odious measures. I gave no undertaking of that kind. He has seriously misunderstood me.

Mr. Foot: That helps to confirm my case. It is one of the most eloquent interventions that the right hon. Gentleman has made throughout this discussion. I might almost say that the case rests. Of course the right hon. Gentleman will use every opportunity he can to disrupt the legislation, and he has now come out with that confession.
What we propose is the best way of preserving the rights which the House


has had in this matter. Those who wish to transform this Committee into something much more elaborate and far-reaching are the persons who are seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Peter Emery: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The acceptance of the closure motion is always, rightly, in the decision of the Chair. Is it not slightly unusual for that decision to be taken when Privy Councillors rise, wishing to be called to speak in the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I have said before, all hon. Members are equal in this place—some a little more equal than others. It is customary for Mr. Speaker to decide whether to accept the closure motion.

The House having divided: Ayes 311, Noes 303.

Division No. 386.]
AYES
[5.56 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hardy, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Harper, Joseph


Archer, Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davidson, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hatton, Frank


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Atkinson, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hooley, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Horam, John


Bates, Alf
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bean, R. E.
Dempsey, James
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Doig, Peter
Huckfield, Les


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bidwell, Sydney
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bishop, E. S.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boardman, H.
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Eadie, Alex
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
English Michael
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Buchanan, Richard
Evans Ioan (Aberdare)
John, Brynmor


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, Waiter (Derby S)




Jones Alec (Rhondda)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Campbell, Ian
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Canavan, Dennis
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Judd, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Kaufman, Gerald


Carmichael, Neil
Flannery, Martin
Kelley, Richard


Carter, Ray
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kerr, Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cartwright, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kinnock Neil


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ford, Ben
Lambie David


Clemitson, Ivor
Forrester, John
Lamborn, Harry


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lomond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lee, John


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Conlan, Bernard
George, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gilbert, Dr John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Corbett, Robin
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cowans, Harry
Golding, John
Lipton, Marcus


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gould, Bryan
Litterick, Tom


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth


Crawshaw, Richard
Graham, Ted
Loyden, Eddie


Cronin, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Luard, Evan


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grocott, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)




Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Paimer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Park, George
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Parker, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McElhone, Frank
Parry, Robert
Swain, Thomas


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mackintosh, John P.
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Maclennan, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Prescott, John
Tierney, Sydney


McNamara, Kevin
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tinn, James


Madden, Max
Price, William (Rugby)
Tomlinson, John


Magee, Bryan
Radice, Giles
Tomney, Frank


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Torney, Tom


Mahon, Simon
Richardson, Miss Jo
Urwin, T. W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Ward, Michael


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Watkins, David


Meacher, Michael
Rooker, J. W.
Watkinson, John


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roper, John
Weetch, Ken


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Weitzman, David


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wellbeloved, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rowlands, Ted
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Ryman, John
White, James (Pollock)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Sandelson, Neville
Whitehead, Phillip


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sedgemore, Brian
Whitlock, William


Molloy, William
Selby, Harry
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moonman, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sillars, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Newens, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Noble, Mike
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Oakes, Gordon
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Ogden, Eric
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Halloran, Michael
Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Orbach, Maurice
Spearing, Nigel



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ovenden, John
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. David Stoddart.


Padley, Walter
Stott, Roger





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carson, John
Farr, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fell, Anthony


Alison, Michael
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Clegg, Walter
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Kenneth
Cockcroft, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)


Banks, Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fox, Marcus


Beith, A. J.
Cope, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cordle, John H.
Freud, Clement


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick
Fry, Peter


Biffen, John
Corrie, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Body, Richard
Crawford, Douglas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bottomley, Peter
Crouch, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crowder, F. P.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Goodhart, Philip


Bradford, Rev Robert
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodhew, Victor


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodlad, Alastair


Brittan, Leon
Drayson, Burnaby
Gorst, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brotherton, Michael
Durant, Tony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Gray, Hamish


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grieve, Percy


Buck, Antony
Elliott, Sir William
Griffiths, Eldon


Budgen, Nick
Emery, Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bulmer, Esmond
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Grist, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Eyre, Reginald
Grylls, Michael


Butter, Adam (Bosworth)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hall, Sir John


Carlisle, Mark
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.







Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
Sainsbury, Tim


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mather, Carol
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hannam, John
Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Havers, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Silvester, Fred


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Peter
Sims, Roger


Henderson, Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hodgson, Robin
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Holland, Philip
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spence, John


Hooson, Emlyn
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sproat, Iain


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stanley, John


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mudd, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hurd, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael
Stokes, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Nott, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tebbit, Norman


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Osborn, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Jopling, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Richard (Workington)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Paisley, Rev Ian
Thompson, George


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pardoe, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Kershaw, Anthony
Parkinson, Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D.


Kilfedder, James
Pattie, Geoffrey
Trotter Neville


Kimball, Marcus
Penhaligon, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Percival, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Kirk, Sir Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Viggers, Peter


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakeham, John


Knox, David
Prior, Rt Hon James



Lamont, Norman
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rathbone, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walters, Dennis


Lawson, Nigel
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Reid, George
Watt, Hamish


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Weatherill, Bernard


Lloyd, Ian
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wells, John


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Welsh, Andrew


Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


MacCormick, Iain
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wigley, Dafydd


McCrindle, Robert
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


McCusker, H.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


MacGregor, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Younger, Hon George


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Madel, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Royle, Sir Anthony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 310.

Division No. 387.]
AYES
[6.09 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Beith, A. J.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bradford, Rev Robert


Alison, Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Blaker, Peter
Brotherton, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Body, Richard
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Kenneth
Bottomley, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Banks, Robert
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Buck, Antony




Budgen, Nick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Carson, John
Hodgson, Robin
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John


Channon, Paul
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow West)


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pardoe, John


Clegg, Walter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Penhaligon, David


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian


Cordle, John H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Corrie, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crawford, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Reid, George


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Elliott, Sir William
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff MW)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Latham, Michael (Merton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Farr, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fell, Anthony
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Tim


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fox, Marcus
MacCormick, Iain
Shepherd, Colin


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Freud, Clement
McCusker, H.
Silvester, Fred


Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Goodhart, Philip
Males, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Sproat, Iain


Goodlad, Alastair
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter
Stokes, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger
Taylor, R. (Croydon MW)


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hall, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Thompson, George


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Havers, Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon peter (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard







Viggers, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Winterton, Nicholas


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Watt, Hemish
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Wakenham, John
Weatherill, Bernard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wells, John
Younger, Hon George


Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Welsh, Andrew



Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wall, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. W. Benyon and


Walters, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Carol Mather.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard


Allaun, Frank
Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Archer, Peter
Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Edge, Geoff
Lambie, David


Ashley, Jack
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lamborn, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamond, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ennals, David
Lee, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bates, Alf
Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Bean, R. E.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Faulds, Andrew
Lipton, Marcus


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Litterick, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Flannery, Martin
Loyden, Eddie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Luard, Evan


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce
Mackintosh, John P.


Buchanan, Richard
Gilbert, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Golding, John
McNamara, Kevin


Caliaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max


Campbell, Ian
Gourlay, Harry
Magee, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Cant, R. B.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marion, Simon


Carmichael, Neil
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Carter, Ray
Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marquand, David


Cartwright, John
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Harper, Joseph
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clemitson, Ivor
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Halton, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mendelson, John


Concannon, J. D.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Conlan, Bernard
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Corbett, Robin
Horam, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Cowans, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Huckfield, Les
Moonman, Eric


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cronin, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland


Cryer, Bob
Hunter, Adam
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge HIM)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Newens, Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Noble, Mike


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Janner, Greville
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Orbach, Maurice


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Deakins, Eric
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Ovenden, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
John, Brynmor
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Padley, Walter


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Palmer, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Park, George


Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Parker, John


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parry, Robert


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom




Perry, Ernest







Phipps, Dr Colin
Sillars, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Silverman, Julius
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Prescott, John
Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Michael


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Small, William
Watkins, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Watkinson, John


Radice, Giles
Snape, Peter
Weetch, Ken


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


Richardson, Miss Jo
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stallard, A. W.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, James (Pollok)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stott, Roger
Whitehead, Phillip


Robinson, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin
Whitlock, William


Roderick, Caerwyn
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rooker, J. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, Rt Horn Shirley (Hertford)


Roper, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Rowlands, Ted
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ryman, John
Tierney, Sydney
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sandelson, Neville
Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Sedgemore, Brian
Tomlinson, John
Woof, Robert


Selby, Harry
Tomney, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Torney, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sheldon Robert (Ashton-u Lyne)
Urwin, T. W.



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Mr. David Stoddart.


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, for the remainder of this Session, any Questions necessary to dispose of Motions moved by a Minister of the Crown, and any amendments thereto selected by Mr. Speaker, relating to Committees to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to Amendments to Bills shall be decided forthwith, and proceedings on such Motions, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING)

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Sunday trading.
This has been a contentious subject in the House, but what I am about to introduce is not a particularly contentious measure. If it has any claim to remark-ability, it might well be the time of day at which this Ten-Minute Bill comes before the House.
I think that the whole House will agree that if we are to have legislation it should be good legislation, and that if we are to enforce laws, the laws that we enforce should be evenly enforced. My Bill would reform the Shops Acts of 1950 and 1965, specifically in respect of Schedule 7 dealing with Sunday trading. I want to do it predominantly because the Shops Act 1950 is a bad Act and is

desperately unevenly enforced, if it is enforced at all. It dates back to the Sunday Fairs Act 1448 and the Sunday Observance Act 1677, and has steadily tried to hold a delicate balance between religious observance and the problem of the little woman who needs a twist of sugar on a Sunday.
I shall give a few instances so that the House can decide just how bad is the law that we have at the moment. The state of play currently is that on a Sunday one may buy fresh milk but not powdered milk. One may buy fresh cream but not tinned cream. One may buy prophylactics only if they are on prescription. One cannot go to a chemist and buy one without a prescription. One may buy newspapers but not the Book of Common Prayer—unless one goes to a bookshop which is open on a Sunday; the only bookshops allowed to be open on a Sunday are those at an approved station. There is in the law nothing to tell one how to approve or disapprove of a station. In view of the rail cuts I disapprove of all stations, except for one or two which have remained open on a Sunday.
With regard to take-away food, almost any take-away food—[Interruption.] In the case of take-away food—[Interruption.] I can hardly hear myself speak—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman complains that he can hardly hear himself speak, it makes it much more difficult for the rest of us.

Mr. Freud: With regard to takeaway food, almost any take-away food may be sold on a Sunday, with the exception of fish and chips. One may not buy fish and chips on a Sunday. One may buy spares for motor cars, motor cycles and cycles on a Sunday. One may buy the wheels, the spokes, the tyres, the chassis, the engine and the windscreen wipers. The only thing one cannot buy is the whole car, the whole motor cycle or the whole cycle.
I do not think that I need to give any further instances of the fact that this is a plumb bad law. It is, of course, a law which is very hard to enforce, because I think that all of us, I say with respect, at some time have broken the Sunday trading laws. [Interruption.] I shall be interested to hear from anyone who has not.
There was a case, which received a fair amount of publicity, where a furniture shop opened on a Sunday, was prosecuted and then managed to get a change of usage certificate. It became a furniture and vegetable shop, and sold a carrot for £200, with a three-piece suite as a promotional gift. A law that allows people to bring the legislation of this country into such disrepute is a bad law and ought to be amended.
One of the great dangers of a bad law such as this is not only that it is unevenly enforced, if it is enforced at all, but that very frequently the police, who are unable to summon the shop in question under any other section of the law, use this outdated, outmoded and bad Schedule 7 to the Shops Act to prosecute a shop which is only doing what everyone else is doing, namely, selling things on a Sunday.
My Bill recognises Sunday as a day of worship and will not seek to have any more establishments opened on a Sunday. What it does is look at the general picture of the present law and rationalise it.
At the moment, there is a closing time for all shops, but there is no opening time. Shops may close at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., but there is no opening time laid down in the Shops Act, and, presumably, a shop-keeper could open his premises at one minute past midnight if he wished to.
My Bill would scrap all existing restrictions on what may or may not be sold

on Sundays. It is quite invidious to go into a shop on a Sunday only to find half the shelves covered because the goods on them may not be sold. My Bill would seek simply to allow all shops which are already open on Sundays to sell on Sundays those goods they normally sell on weekdays.
In the present law there are certain religious exemptions, especially those applying in the East End of London where markets are allowed to operate on Sundays because the Jews who live there worship on Saturdays and the shops round there do not open on Saturdays. My Bill seeks to extend the exemptions to other minorities, such as Indians, to people who have religious convictions which cause them to close their shops on other days of the week and thereby permit them to trade on Sundays.
The third object of my Bill is to give local authorities a greater say in authorising shops to open on Sundays. At the moment, a local authority may allow shops to open for 17 Sundays in the year provided that it is a holiday resort." It seems to me that it would be sensible to extend the principle of the referenda held in Wales about whether local authorities shall allow drinking on Sundays. If local authorities wish to hold a referendum, well and good, but it seems to me that they are the ultimate people who know and who should be able to decide whether a shop may open, whether there is a demand and whether people should be allowed to go to shops on Sundays.
Finally, and perhaps most important, the rights of employees would be protected. It would be made clear that no shopkeeper could give notice to an employee who did not want to work on Sundays. By the same token, it would control the wages which could be paid for Sunday working so that it would not be made so attractive financially that people found it irresistible to work on the seventh day.
Those are the very simple purposes of my Bill. I hope that the House will allow me to introduce it. It will not increase the incidence of Sunday trading, but it will regularise the absurdities and anomalies in the current law.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I do not propose to waste the time of


the House any further. A great deal of time has been wasted already by the forcing of Divisions. I wish merely to declare my opposition to the motion and my hope that the Bill will not see the light of day.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 197.

Division No. 388.]
AYES
[6.34 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Hodgson, Robin
Reid, George


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Baker, Kenneth
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Biggs-Davison, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Body, Richard
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Scott-Hopkins, James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Brotherton, Michael
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Buck, Antony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Budgen, Nick
Macfarlane, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Burden, F. A.
Marten, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Carlisle, Mark
Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Churchill, W. S.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Cockcroft, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Trotter, Neville


Cormack, Patrick
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Viggers, Peter


Crawford, Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Durant, Tony
Mudd, David
Wakenham, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Normanton, Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nott, John
Warren, Kenneth


Glyn, Dr Alan
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherhill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Richard (Workington)
Weish, Andrew


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Pardoe, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Grist, Ian
Penhaligon, David
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Percival, Ian



Hayhoe, Barney
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hicks, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Clement Freud and


Higgins, Terence L.
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Geraint Howells.


Holland, Philip






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Corbett, Robin
Golding, John


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Graham, Ted


Archer, Peter
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashley, Jack
Cronin, John
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashton, Joe
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Hamish


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bates, Alf
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hardy, Peter


Bean, R. E.
Cowans, Harry
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hatton, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Les


Boardman, H.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edge, Geoff
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
English, Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Judd, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kelley, Richard


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kerr, Russell


Carmichael, Neil
Farr, John
Kilfedder, James


Carson, John
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lambie, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin
Lamborn, Harry


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Channon, Paul
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Forrester, John
Lee, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lipton, Marcus


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Litterick, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Fry, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Loyden, Eddie


Concannon, J. D.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Luard, Evan


Conlan, Bernard
George, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)




Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Padley, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie


McCartney, Hugh
Paisley, Rev Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCusker, H.
Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Park, George
Stoddart, David


Maclennan, Robert
Parker, John
Strang, Gavin


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Parry, Robert
Swain, Thomas


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


McNamara, Kevin
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Price, William (Rugby)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marks, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tierney, Sydney


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Urwin, T. W.


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mendelson, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Ward, Michael


Molloy, William
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Watkins, David


Molyneaux, James
Rooker, J. W.
Watkinson, John


Moonman, Eric
Rose, Paul B.
Weitzman, David


Morgan, Geraint
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ryman, John
Whitlock, William


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Selby, Harry
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sillars, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Newens, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis



Ogden, Eric
Small, William
TELLERS for THE NOES:


O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Rt. Hon. E. Fernyhough and


Orbach, Maurice
Snape, Peter
Mr. Thomas Torney

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

RECONSTITUTION OF BOARD AS BODY CORPORATE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out "twelve" and insert "sixteen".

6.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Mr. Booth: Since these amendments all deal with the method of appointment and the scope of the new National Dock Labour Board, it will be of help if I briefly set out the approach made to the issue when we last debated it in the House and in Committee.
It was common ground between the Government and the Opposition that the responsibilities of the new Board, as laid down in the Bill, were wider than those of the existing Board. If the Bill is left broadly in its present form, the new Board will be responsible for surveying and recommending in respect of the classification of provisions under Clauses 6, 7 and 8.
The responsibilities will also be wider because the Board will have a duty to review developments affecting the performance of dock work. It was considered that in those circumstances the new Board should be larger than the old. Although there were marginal reservations about the size of the Board, there was no great dissent from the basic proposition that the Board should comprise a chairman, vice-chairman and 12 others.
On Clause 1 we encountered more contentious debate on the issue of the Board's proportions. There was argument about the proportion of members coming from the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, who should be consulted and which interests should be represented among those serving on the Board coming from areas other than the NJC for the industry. That contentious issue is dealt with in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which increase the number of members of the new Board from 12 to 16, in addition to the chairman and vice-chairman, and increases from four to eight the number of members to be appointed other than on the nomination or renomination of the NJC.
I urge the House to disagree with the Lords, first, because it would be wrong greatly to increase the size of the Board. The size is broadly right and it will be an effective working body. More seriously, I am anxious about the second leg of the propositions in the amendments, because they would reduce to less than half the proportion of members on the Board who came from the NJC. That would be a serious situation to create within such a Board.
If the National Dock Labour Board is to carry confidence and have the maximum effective co-operation, which it will require from employers and employees within the scheme, it is of the utmost importance that a substantial proportion of the Board be picked from nominees of the NJC. After all, the registered employers and registered dock workers will be primarily affected by decisions of the Board and by the operation of the scheme.
Although it is common ground between us that the Board should be bigger in order to allow interests other than those of the port employers' association and the two major unions organising registered dock unions to be represented, it would be greatly detrimental to the new Board if those other interests were in numerical terms to outweigh the representation of those who are directly involved in the scheme in the way I have described.
Another issue is raised by Amendments Nos. 3 and 4—that of whom the Secretary of State should consult before making the appointments of those other than the nominees of the National Joint


Council. It is suggested that, in addition to consulting the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, the National Consumer Council should be consulted.
I have studied the case that was deployed in another place for this proposition, just as I have re-examined the debates that we had in Committee on the issue of consumer interests and consumer representation. I take the view that the consumer interest is not best, or even adequately, served in the way the amendments suggest. Taking the narrow view of what "consumer interest" is and defining it as merely the price of the goods or services that the public pay, that clearly is a very small part, if any part at all, of the effect of decisions of the new National Dock Labour Board.
The proportion of the total costs of consumer goods in United Kingdom shops which is directly attributable to transport as a whole is fairly small. The part of that attributable to handling in the docks is very small indeed. If one were to seek to ascertain how much of the cost that the consumer faces arises from cargo handling in the docks, it would be found that a very small part of that was due to wages.
Clearly, the nature of the industry is such that there must be high fixed capital costs such as port installations, cargo handling machinery, harbour maintenance and a large number of other features besides the direct labour costs. Even giving this argument about the consumer interests on the Board its full scope, if one allowed that the wages element of dockers had an effect on consumer prices one would have to acknowledge that the Board will not negotiate wages: that will be a matter for the new National Joint Council for the industry.
Looking at the consumer interest from that narrow point of view, there is no case whatsoever for the amendment. It might be argued that there is a much better case, based upon that proposition, for putting consumer representatives on the boards of a whole series of manufacturing organisations and retail associations throughout the country whose activities have a much greater effect on the price that the consumer pays for goods.
I am prepared, and I think that the House should be prepared, to look at consumer interests in relation to what the Board does in a wider sense than that of merely the price paid for goods in the shop and to recognise that many people are consumers in the wider sense of the activity of dock workers—people who for their normal services and for their method of earning their bread and butter are dependent upon the docks working efficiently, dependent upon the raw materials being imported which they use in the factories, or dependent upon the importation of a whole range of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods. Looking at consumer interests in that wider sense, there are many more people than the National Consumer Council to be taken into account.
We are therefore right to make a provision in the Bill for consulting the CBI and the TUC before the appointment takes place of those members of the Board other than those who are nominated directly from the NJC; and I believe that those who are put forward by the TUC and the CBI will reflect the wider consumer interest in that sense. It might be as well for me to indicate now that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment to Clause 2 requiring the Board to have
regard to the public interest".
This takes account not just of consumers but of the community as a whole and of interests concerned with the use of manpower in the ports.
There are two other issues raised in this batch of amendments. There is, first, the issue whether the National Association of Warehousekeepers should be among the list of those to be consulted before appointments are made. It is undoubtedly the case that some of the work undertaken by member of the National Association of Warehousekeepers might be classified under the Bill, but a number of employers' associations are very much in the same position, and I do not think that it would be reasonable to require consultation with all such associations before appointing members of the Board.
The employers in question will almost all be individually or through trade associations in membership of the CBI and their interests can therefore be to that extent adequately represented. But,


as we are in any case acknowledging in the way we propose to establish the Board that a wider trade union interest than that of the unions now represented on the Board and a wider employer interest is required, it would not be advisable to focus attention in this way on one particular section of employer interests.
The last point that arises on this batch of amendments is that arising on Amendment No. 6 which would, if agreed to, require
four members of the Board
to
be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry to represent consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports
The group of employers and employees not represented on the NJC and with the greatest interest in matters to be considered by the Board must obviously be those whose work might be subject to survey and a recommendation on classification.
My view, which was not basically contested in Committee, is that it would be wrong to limit the representation on the new Board to that of unions and employers currently in classified work and those whose work might be classified in the future. It was agreed between us that the employer-employee interest—or the union-employer interest—went much wider than that, and if we disagree with this amendment, we should do so in the spirit that I have indicated to the House: first, in accepting the amendment to widen the duty of the Board to have regard to the public interest and, secondly, to enable the Secretary of State responsible—whether it is myself or any successor—to ensure that that representation of all the interests other than those directly engaged in the industry at present should be properly considered when those other appointments are made.
Briefly, I am urging the House to make again a judgment which it made once before, a difficult judgment admittedly, on the size and composition of the Board, a judgment which has been arrived at after careful consideration of a series of issues, and one which will allow the slightly wider responsibility of the

new Board to be exercised in a responsible way in the public interest as well as in the interests of the effective working of the industry.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: As he has with most matters in the Bill, the Secretary of State has the balance wrong here, but we do not wish to detain the House on these amendments for very long because there are far more important matters which ought to be discussed.
In Committee we moved an amendment that there should be 14 members of the Board because we thought that 16 meant too big a Board. We were also worried that the National Joint Council was to have 50 per cent. representation, exclusive of the chairman and vice-chairman. We felt that there ought to be a much wider representation of interests on the Board, because the Government are seeking powers well beyond the powers of the Dock Labour Scheme and the Dock Labour Board as we know them now. Many other bodies and individuals, whether unions, dock users or consumers, were to be affected, and, therefore, it seemed right and proper that they should have their right to representation properly set out. Their Lordships found that it would be easy to do that if the size of the Board were increased from 12 to 16.
I am not in favour of big boards, and I do not suppose that their Lordships are, either, but they found it the easiest way of providing for the representation they desired and getting a balance of representation. That was the logic behind Lords Amendment No. 1.
Lords Amendment No. 6, which deals with representation of consumers, port users and their employees, and others not represented on the NJC, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult these other bodies before appointing members of the Board, whether eight, as the Government wanted, or four as is now written in the Bill. We felt that that was a sensible way of dealing with the matter.
We do not agree with the Minister that the proportion of members from the NJC should not be less than half. Of course we recognise the importance of the National Dock Labour Board's being able to carry the confidence of the employers and employees most affected, but there


are other people whose confidence it is just as important to carry. We are disappointed that the Secretary of State has taken the view he has. We believe he is wrong and that their Lordships, particularly in Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6, are correct. We had hoped that the Secretary of State would agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
We do not propose to divide on this series of amendments, because we wish to get on to other more important matters. We support the Lords in the amendments. We are sorry that the Secretary of State has not found it possible to accept them.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall be brief, but I think it important that one or two points should go on record in view of the speech by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) about the composition of the Board. He was unfair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because he fully understands that the Bill extends the interests to be represented on the National Dock Labour Board for the first time since it was set up. The Opposition should at least have given my right hon. Friend credit for that and conceded the broadening of interests in the composition of the Board.
The Opposition have argued that representation on the new body ought to go further than the CBI and the other bodies mentioned. There is a contradiction between what the Opposition have said tonight about representation of consumer interests and what they have said before. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members would want to see consumer interests represented in all our institutions, and to see particularly the interests of those who work in the industry represented as well. When the composition of boards of school governors was discussed the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said that he would resist the idea that because pupils were consumers they should be represented on boards of management. It appears to me that there is no sense of unity in the Opposition about what consumer interests should mean.
For the first time there is to be a broader-based interest represented on the Board. Most even-minded people would agree that those mainly concerned about the running of the ports industry are

those who work in it, who operate and manage it. By the inclusion of the other bodies the Bill has extended representation to other areas. In that sense the Government have given much of what the Opposition argued for in the composition of the new Board.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the Lords amendment. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) agrees that we should be giving far more acknowledgement to the rôle of consumers on boards. He talked about governors of schools. When I was on a board of governors we brought in two pupils, and I am sure that the same thing is happening in other parts of the country. The Government should have given at least token acknowledgement of the fact that consumers should have some say in the appointment of members of the Board. We made the point in Committee, but lost there. It was ably made in another place, where it was carried. I am sorry that the Government have decided to remove the Lords amendment. It should have remained. However, I accept the decision of the Opposition Front Bench that there are far more important matters to come to, and, therefore, I shall not press this question.

Mr. Booth: In the Government's view the present provision about the appointment of members other than those who come directly from the NJC in no way excludes people who will have a high regard for the consumer interest. It leaves the matter at large and does not define the specific responsibility of particular appointees. What it does is to lay down that the Secretary of State must consult the TUC, the CBI and the NJC before he appoints them. Their duties and responsibilities will include those covered by the general duty of the Board in Clause 2, which, when we accept the amendment to that clause, will make a specific reference to the broader "public interest". I contend that that includes the interests of consumers. The fact that we are not saying what shall be the specific duties of the members of the Board additional to the NJC members does not mean that we are saying that there will be no consumer interest or responsibility recognised by the Board.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 disagreed to.

Clause 2

GENERAL DUTY OF THE BOARD

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 2, line 11, after "Board" insert
, having regard to the public interest.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It can be argued that the words contained in the amendment are not strictly necessary. The Board will be a responsible body and there is no reason to suppose that it will put forward proposals which it will consider to be contrary to the public interest. However, the words may help to remove what we believe to be unwarranted apprehensions, and therefore I ask the House to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

SECRETARY OF STATE TO PREPARE NEW SCHEME

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 3, line 38, leave out "in draft" and insert
and publish in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries (Notices and Procedures)) to this Act,".

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 20, 42, 43 and 58.

Mr. Walker: The amendments are directed to what those who participated in the Committee and in other proceedings will recognise as familiar ground. They require that in the case of the new Dock Labour Scheme, in any subsequent amendments to the scheme, and in proposed orders classifying or declassifying work, contrary to the Board's opinion following consideration under Clause 9, there shall be compliance with the procedure set out in the new schedule. We discussed similar amendments in Standing Committee for the best part of two hours. I have no doubt that the Con-

servatives will point out that the procedure in the schedule closely follows that provided for in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946.
In Standing Committee my right hon. Friend said that the Government believed that the procedure in Clause 4 was a significant improvement on the procedures provided in the 1946 Act. We have neither seen nor head anything since to persuade us that our position then was wrong.
Under the 1946 Act the Secretary of State was required to prepare a draft embodying the scheme, to give notice where copies could be obtained, to allow not less than 40 days for objections, and then to appoint the public inquiry. In the light of the results of that inquiry he was required to make an order, either in the terms of the draft, or subject to such modifications as he thought fit—the order under the 1946 scheme being subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The Government believe that to establish such a public inquiry is no substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate—not only on the laying of an initial scheme before the House, but in the case of any subsequent amendment to it. Consequently the Bill provides that the draft new scheme, and any amendments to it, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Although the Bill does not expressly provide for this, the draft of the new scheme will in practice be drawn up after consultation with the Board and those interests represented on it, and after taking account of any views expressed by those concerned with the industry. A few bodies have already commented on matters concerned with the new scheme, and any further views of this kind would of course also be examined. The formal procedure in the Bill for representations to be made to the Secretary of State about the draft of the scheme, and for the draft to be amended, if appropriate, gives further opportunity for the views of those who may be affected by the operation of the scheme to be made known and taken into account. Subsequently, there will have to be the affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament to approve the draft scheme.
These procedures allow full opportunity for interests concerned to make


their views known. To provide for a public inquiry as well would make the procedure unnecessarily cumbersome. The report of a public inquiry would in any case simply be an additional factor which the Secretary of State would have to take into account in considering whether and in what way to amend the draft scheme. He could not—and the new schedule does not propose that he should—be obliged to make any particular changes as the result of the inquiry. The Government believe that in this context, the public inquiry procedure would be time-consuming, cumbersome and unnecessary.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Prior: It will come as no surprise to the Government that we strongly approve of what their Lordships have done in this case. Perhaps it would be appropriate at this stage, since we have now moved on to one of the main amendments, to look back and consider the point that the Bill has reached.
It seems to have very few friends left. Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is one of them. It certainly has fewer friends among the dockers now that they have discovered that it is not what they anticipated it would be a year ago. It also has very few friends left in the House. One has only to move through the corridors to hear Labour Members saying that it is the worst Bill ever introduced into the House of Commons. Cabinet Ministers are prepared to say in private that it is a shocking Bill and that they cannot understand why the Government are introducing it.
If one wants further evidence one has only to read the Press, particularly the leading articles in every newspaper which do nothing but run the Bill down. One has only to consider the country's economic situation to see just how inappropriate the Bill is at this time. It is totally irrelevant in every way to the country's needs. It has no relevance to the needs of dockland or of the dockers, to the surplus of dockers in the Port of London, and perhaps one or two other places, or to the needs of the consumers, the cold storage industry and so on. We are not surprised at the bad state of the economy when we see the Government's determination to press ahead with the Bill in its present form and to disagree with the

Lords amendments which would at least do something to improve the Bill.
We have just discussed amendments dealing with the composition of the National Dock Labour Board. One of the points raised was that since the Board will have much increased power and authority it should have a wider composition. There is no provision in the Bill, however, for a public inquiry. It is extraordinary that a public inquiry can be called on the most trivial and detailed matters relating to planning agreements, but that on a major issue such as this, involving the employment, prosperity and future of large organisations, a public inquiry is ruled out.
It is wrong to suggest that the affirmative resolution procedure is in any way a substitute for a public inquiry. We know that resolutions introduced under that procedure can be debated for one and a half hours, generally late at night and if there is time, and that otherwise they tend to go through on the nod. But there is no means by which such a resolution can be amended and no adequate chance to scrutinise it.
The Government have got their business into the state where they have to guillotine even the Lords amendments. To suggest in those circumstances that the affirmative resolution procedure would provide the opporunity for what the Minister described as proper parliamentary inquiry and debate is a travesty of the truth.
I do not believe that those outside the House will derive any confidence from the fact that an hour and a half's debate in the House is considered an adequate substitute for a proper public inquiry. We strongly support the whole concept of a public inquiry. As the Minister of State has said, the power of inquiry was available under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. Indeed, it was used on a number of occasions although the procedure was not so vital under the old Act as in this legislation.
Why do we think that the procedure is so necessary now? First, under this legislation there has been a radical extension of port legislation into areas which by no stretch of the imagination can be described as port areas. I refer to the five-mile cargo-handling zone that can be extended by order. That is one reason


for its being necessary to have a proper public inquiry.
Secondly, the definitions and criteria written into the Bill are ambiguous and uncertain. They will give the National Dock Labour Board a most difficult and unenviable task. They will take up a vast amount of time for both unions and employers. I do not know how employers will be able to get on with running their businesses and I do not know how others will be able to do their own jobs while they are having to make these recommendations to the Secretary of State.
I do not believe that the Civil Service or the Government have thought out these matters for one moment. That is one of the great fears about legislation that is passed by the House nowadays. We are not engaged in the practicalities of running a business, and there is criticism outside not only from Conservative businessmen but from all sections of the community about the lack of experience in the Chamber. The criticism that we lack ability to determine what is suitable for legislation and the way that legislation should be framed is rising to a crescendo. We are all fed up with the amount of legislation, and nowhere is that feeling more prevalent than in industrial relations legislation. We have had far too much of it, and it is largely incomprehensible.
This legislation will place obligations and duties on the National Dock Labour Board that will take an enormous amount of time, and I suggest that at the end of the day it will not be possible to come to definite and certain decisions. That is another reason for our thinking that there should be a public inquiry.
Thirdly, there is the dispute about the precise extent of the cargo-handling zone and the relevant premises included therein. Fourthly, there is contention about the precise definition of Schedule 3—namely, what is classified and what is not. There is dissension and uncertainty about the effect of the criteria laid down in Clauses 8 and 9, to which the National Dock Labour Board must have regard when deciding on its recommendations.
We believe that the Bill as it stands is a recipe for dispute, misunderstanding, conflict and misrepresentations. It is likely to create far more problems than

it will solve. We have argued throughout that it will set union against union, employer against employer, docker against others and achieve precisely nothing. Is it too much to ask the Government, even at this stage, to withdraw the Bill and think again? If that is too much, is it too much to ask them to have a public inquiry?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the definitions in Clauses 8 and 9 and Schedule 3. He has suggested that there are uncertainties that the local dock labour boards will have to determine. How can he suggest that a public inquiry will be of any assistance in making decisions in borderline cases? Surely the local boards will be available in a judicial capacity. How can a public inquiry help?

Mr. Prior: A public inquiry would bring out all the factors involved at an early stage. It would enable the National Dock Labour Board to reach far better decisions than would otherwise be the case. Surely the widest possible consultation and inquiry should be available. The publicity that would come out of an inquiry at an early stage would considerably influence any attitude that the National Dock Labour Board took.
It is the element of publicity that is so important. It would give the wider public a chance of making up their minds and the Secretary of State a chance to examine all the evidence that it laid out in front of him.
That is the publicity side, but there is the public interest side as well. We believe that those who have strong feelings need to have the right of a public inquiry at which to put their point of view. That right is to be denied to them.
I know that people will be allowed to make their representations to the Minister, but that is nothing like the same as being able to have a public inquiry. I wonder what attitude Labour Members would take if instead of their being able to have a motorway public inquiry, for example, it was said " We shall allow individuals to make objections to the Minister, the Minister will decide and there will be no method by which the public can make their views known in public."
We are dealing with matters of great importance. We are extending the dock area to five miles. For the first time we shall include a great many people who have hitherto been excluded from dock work. We shall include a great many people working in the industry, a great many who have warehouses and a great many who provide employment. But we are saying that they are not to have the right to have a public inquiry, a right that they had under the 1946 Act when the circumstances were far more narrowly defined than they are now.
Surely we have no right to take away the right to have a public inquiry. I do not believe that it is any substitute or an adequate safeguard to deal with the matter by way of affirmative resolution. That procedure may have been adequate 50 years or 100 years ago but it is not today. I say frankly, flatly and plainly that we know it is not adequate.
Even for those of us who do not like the Bill, who would do all we could to kill it straight away, it seems essential to be able to have a public inquiry. It also seems essential from the Government's point of view to provide such hearings if they want acceptance of the Bill in the dockland areas. If public inquiries are not provided, it will be thought again that this is another way in which the covering up of the machinery is taking place. I beg Labour Members to compare the circumstances in which we have public inquiries with the failure to grant one in this case.
Given all the circumstances and the need for such an inquiry, surely the Government should change their minds. It would not be a matter of great principle if they were to change their minds on this issue. They know that the House is fairly evenly divided. Is it suggesting too much that on this issue they give way at this stage, agree with the Lords and accept the amendment? Surely that would not be too much.
If the Government took that course, they might be making their job considerably easier not only for the rest of the Bill but when the Bill comes into operation. If the amendment is not accepted, I doubt very much whether there will be many people in the industry who will have confidence in what the Government are seeking to do.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has made it clear that he does not like the Bill and that he would prefer it to be withdrawn. He has argued that from his point of view even a public inquiry is nothing more than a cosmetic operation. He said that the Bill has few friends, but he has been saying that ever since Second Reading. The Press has been saying that since Second Reading. Indeed, it was doing so before the Bill was published. There is nothing new in that. That is partly because the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have set out to distort the meaning and the purpose of the Bill. They have sought to put union against union and to put the worst possible construction on every clause and facet of the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
Now, after many hours of discussion, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft is reduced to quoting in the House corridor gossip by Cabinet Ministers saying that it is a bad Bill and they do not know how it came to fruition. If he expects us to believe that, he expects us to believe anything. The right hon. Gentleman must live in a world of his own where Members and Ministers shout at the tops of their voices, especially in his hearing on the day when we are discussing the Bill, "We do not like the Bill." I suggest that is farcical.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft sought to elevate the public inquiry to an issue of principle, although he said that it was not. The suggestion was that without a public inquiry we were in for a great deal of difficulty in dockland.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the public inquiry has been with us for a number of years and has been used on different occasions. What problems has it solved in dockland? Why is it that, over the years, we have had so many problems in dockland? Why is there trouble and strife? Why, with the existence of the public inquiry, have the problems in dockland not been resolved? I do not know. The answer is that the public inquiry might in certain circumstances produce some good. However, it cannot be elevated to the status where, if it is not in the Bill, it will destroy dockland.
I do not understand how the public inquiry fits in here. I thought that if we


were agreed on anything regarding dockland, it was that both sides of the industry—employers and unions—should have early consultations with the National Dock Labour Board on the future of the ports, and so forth. That was the way that we saw the future of the ports and the industry developing.
Why have a public inquiry headed by some outside person who may not know anything about dockland? We know from other inquiries that a Queen's Counsel is plucked from a panel of assessors, if that is the right description, to hold an inquiry. He may have experience of other inquiries, but he may know nothing about the subject on which he is holding the inquiry. That could happen with a public inquiry into dockland. If we had someone inexperienced and ignorant—I use the word "ignorant" in its true sense—of dockland in charge of a public inquiry and eventually making recommendations to the Minister, we could have a complete disaster.
Who will come to the inquiry? Will it be people from outside the industry? Will it be the unions and the employers in dockland? If it is to be the latter, not people from outside the industry, why should they want a public inquiry? Surely they would be better employed in sitting down together and working out solutions to the problems in dockland.

Mr. Loyden: I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that dockland has been the most inquired into industry in the whole of the United Kingdom from Shore to Devlin. With one or two honourable exceptions, most of the inquiries created more problems than they solved. Many of the problems in the docks industry can be resolved better and more effectively by co-operation between management and labour than by inquiries.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that I was making. The only way to achieve a healthy, efficient industry which can be of service to the nation is by consultation and co-operation between employers and workers in dockland.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft referred to motorway inquiries. We have heard of Rent-a-crowd and demonstrations. People from different parts of the

country attend motorway inquiries not only to put their points of view—one could argue that they were entitled to do that—but apparently to deploy disruptive tactics. Indeed, a motorway inquiry cannot start unless the objectors agree to the terms on which the inquiry is to be held.
Is the right hon. Member for Lowestoft advocating that people from outside the docks industry should attend a public inquiry into that industry? I can imagine what he would say if, at the first public inquiry, elements of the militant Left—the extreme fringe organisations of politics—turned up and disrupted the proceedings, saying that they would not allow the inquiry to start until the basis of the inquiry was what they wanted it to be. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not want to encourage that kind of proceeding.

Mr. Prior: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is a good reason for not holding an inquiry?

Mr. Hughes: I think that many people are beginning to look at the worth of public inquiries generally. Public inquiries, if they are to be held, ought to be open. People should be allowed to make known their views. But in fact the opposite is happening. People's views are not being heard. At a recent motorway inquiry, people living in the area were not heard because of the disruptive tactics of others. We must take that into account.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the debate. We are discussing not the future or set-up of public inquiries, but public inquiries as they are now constituted.

Mr. Hughes: Of course we are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft led me along the path of motorway inquiries. I should not have thought of bringing motorway inquiries into the debate if the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned them.
Public inquiries are expensive. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft must not imagine that a public inquiry, as an alternative to what we would like to see in the Bill, will release employers from the onerous tasks which he said they now


have and will have under the Bill and will free them for productive work. If there is a public inquiry, they will have to brief not only themselves, but everybody else involved.
Trying to explain matters to the public or to whoever is in charge of the inquiry can be more expensive in terms of both time and cost than face-to-face discussions with the other parties involved. Indeed, if the parties are not satisfied with the way things are working out, they can be involved in more time and money in making representatives of the Minister. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft is making a great mistake in elevating the public inquiry into a principle.
I side with the Government. We should not agree with the Lords. However well a scheme may be drafted and however much consultation there might be, some people will still be dissatisfied. There will not be perfect agreement every time. If we hold out the possibility of a public inquiry either in advance or after consultation, we shall be wasting time.
Again, I would agree to a great extent with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft about the way in which legislation passes through the House. I shall not divert too far into that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I should hope not.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that I anticipated that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman denigrate the affirmative procedure. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know better than most the argument in Scottish Grand Committee about the use of affirmative procedure as opposed to negative procedure. But if I were in Scottish Grand Committee, I would only just be warming up.
We should not denigrate the House of Commons procedure and I criticise those who ask why we bother with the affirmative procedure, claiming that it is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time. There should be the fullest discussion within the House on regulations. Perhaps there is fault here on both sides of the House, because we may have accepted the principle that regulations have to be accepted in total or not at all.
The right hon. Gentleman made it plain that he does not like the Bill and would prefer not to have it. He says that there is far too much legislation dealing with various facets of industrial lime and industrial relations. But the truth is that if we go back through the history of dockland, the absence of legislation has not improved industrial relations. Over the years we have had a number of different Bills and a number of inquiries and these have led to improvements and to legislation which has improved industrial relations in dockland. Dockland has been greatly transformed and if we want to see industrial peace in dockland, we need legislation which removes the possibility of employers deliberately exploiting the situation.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: My hon. Friend is talking in terms of legislation relating to industrial relations. Is he in favour of proposals such as those contained in the document "In Place of Strife"?

Mr. Hughes: In that White Paper there were many proposals which would have been of value to the trade union movement. The difficulty was that some parts of it were unacceptable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Hughes: We are now in a position to pass legislation dealing with the difficulties which have arisen because private employers of one kind and another are determined to exploit their position for themselves, their profits, and their shareholders. Many are prepared to go to any lengths to do so.
I believe that this Bill makes a positive contribution to dockland and the prosperity of this country. I have no hesitation in saying that I am one of the Bill's friends, and I hope that we will get it on to the statute book quickly.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I shall be brief, but first of all I declare an interest in many matters in this Bill. I must also declare that I have a very heavy cold.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) repeated one of the errors made by him and some of his hon.


Friends throughout the passage of the Bill. He talks about the docks as if they were a closed world. That might have been so in the past, with the old dock wall and the dock gate. If it were true then, which I doubt, it is certainly not true today because of the extension of dockland. Another factor, which gives occasion for this Bill, is the revolution in cargo handling. One can no longer look at the dock phase of the movement of cargo as completely separate. Therefore the arguments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North no longer hold any validity, if they ever did.
The case for a public inquiry is perfectly well made in the old Act. The hon. Member referred to the number of inquiries made under the old Act and the major changes which were made in the arrangements of the then National Dock Labour Scheme. There was an inquiry in 1947 under Mr. George Isaacs, the then Minister of Labour, and another was conducted under John Cameron. Subsequently, decasualisation in 1967 was preceded by an inquiry under Sir George Honeyman in 1966.
I thought that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North suggested that these inquiries were helpful and improved relations in dockland. But he cannot have it both ways. The case for change has to be made by the Government, not by the Lords amendments which are only reverting to the old procedure. I would go along with the Government more if they were proposing a change in procedure here in Parliament. I do not believe that for this type of scheme the affirmative procedure is the proper course of action. Had the Secretary of State said that we would have a Select Committee procedure I would have been more inclined to go along with him. In fact, this Bill might have proceeded through its parliamentary stages rather more smoothly if, when the White Paper was published, the Government had put it through a Select Committee before legislation. Then these details could have been examined. That procedure lends itself to this sort of thing better than the sequential examination of the Bill according to number.
In this Bill the area designated as a cargo-handling zone will be extended, and this means that new businesses and

new employees will be brought within its scope. Parliament should be able to hear the supporting evidence, so that the Government would be on much stronger ground if they proposed a Select Committee-type of procedure rather than relying purely on the Statutory Instrument procedure. In default of the Government's coming forward with a Select Committee procedure, it is preferable to fall back on the former arrangements of the 1946 Act which are incorporated in the Lords amendment. The assumption that debate across the Floor of the House is the most effective, or indeed the only, way to proceed, is a myth. We would do far better by the Select Committee method whereby people can give evidence to hon. Members and answer their questions. Hon. Members sit together to discuss the issues at stake and a lot of party rancour goes when we combine to study a problem.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to meet the point that I am making, I must tell him that the former arrangements under the 1946 Act are preferable to his new procedure.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I reinforce two aspects of the case for public inquiries. One is the use of the word "public". It seems desirable that in the handling of this Bill and in its implementation, if it is ever enacted, the public should have an opportunity to see how it is working and be able to have their voice heard, albeit through a third party who may be conducting the inquiry.
The other aspect that must be recognised is the sheer complexity of the legislation. It is of a nature that is almost certain to produce disputes between the parties involved in the port. Where there is an arrangement for classification or designating cargo-handling zones, and it is a matter of striking a balance between the Dock Labour Board, the employee representatives and the employer representatives, the chances of a decision being taken about which one or two of the major parties involved disagree must be substantial. Therefore, it seems desirable that there should be a procedure whereby such difficulties can be resolved.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) said, the statutory instrument procedure is hardly a vehicle that can be satisfactory either to the parties in disagreement or to the public


for ensuring that this measure, if it ever becomes an Act, is worked properly. The case for the public inquiry is important and should be handled effectively rather than be swept on one side, as the Government may seek to do.

Mr. Loyden: As I said in an earlier intervention, during the last century the docks industry has been one of the most inquired into industries in the United Kingdom. Anyone listening to Opposition Members would think that no attempt had been made to find an alternative method of solving the problems that face dockland because of the technological changes.
We recognise, as I am sure registered dock workers have long since recognised, that this industry is changing almost daily and will continue to do so in the techniques for handling goods. It is not that that the dock worker resists. What he resists is the movement of the industry away from its traditional places and the fact that the definition of dock work has become so vague that the future of the industry and the employment opportunities within it are a source of grave concern. During the last 10 years the industry's labour force has been reduced by about 50 per cent. If one bears that in mind, one realises the justification for the fears of the dockers.
As a nation, it is important for us to recognise that, no matter what changes take place, there will always be a dock industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the dock industry as such on this amendment. I hope that the hon. Member will relate his contribution to the amendment.

Mr. Loyden: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point is that attempts have been made to deal with this industry in a number of ways. One proposal in 1972 by those employed in the industry was that those who manage it and those who work in it should get together to try to solve the problems of the industry, bearing in mind the changes to which I have referred. There was a flat rejection of that idea by the employers. They refused to enter into any mutual consideration of the problems facing the industry because of the technological

changes that were taking place almost daily. That being so, there can be no suggestion that the industry has not tried to deal with its problems.
Although there have been many inquiries into the dock industry, nothing has emerged that has resulted in solving the problems of the industry on a long-term and permanent basis. That is why, in one sense, the Bill is setting out an entirely new base that will give the industry an opportunity for an almost constant review of what is going on. The idea of a public inquiry is important, because one must bear in mind the factors that exist in the locality for determining the work to be done.

Mr. Spearing: The House might be under some slight misapprehension about this matter of public inquiries because, on the face of it, a public inquiry is something that looks at all the facts and uncovers information which hitherto has been private.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), in his reasonable speech, forgot that the public inquiries during the history of dockland—these were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)—were about general arrangements—I do not think anybody would quarrel with that—whereas the public inquiry to which the Lords amendment refers, and which is set out at length in new Schedule 4A, is not about an arrangement in general. That is the subject of the Bill. This inquiry will be into individual and perhaps collective designation orders. That is a different question.
We found in Committee—I think that we have this in common across the Floor of the House—that matters of designation and definition in dock work are extremely technical. The best people to determine that sort of thing are the local boards, on which employees, employers and others will sit. They will come to some continuing relationship, as they do now. In the local environment, tuned to local custom and practice, they will come to agreements across the table on awkward definitions and perhaps on awkward designations.
New Schedule 4A, which runs to one and a half pages, says that there can be public inquiries in respect of what will be Section 11(4). The Clause 11 proce-


dure, and that in subsection (4) in particular, relates to classification orders. It may come down to a classification of work in particular premises or in detailed form. To put into a provision the whole of the public inquiry procedure, including all the provisions of Section 250 of the Local Goverment Act 1972, which presumably could be triggered off by statutory objections, to deal with a relatively small technical matter seems, on the face of it, to be a good idea, but when one comes to think about it one realises that the practical way of dealing with a matter of this sort is by a local board. Such a board—and this has not been emphasised so far—will, under the terms of the Bill, have a wide discretion, so that instead of being shackled by statutes that do not fit local circumstances, it will be able to take all the local considerations into account.
Clause 9 deals with references by the Secretary of State to the Board. Rather than everything being done in private, as those who have heard the debate so far might think will happen, that clause says that the Secretary of State
shall publish notice that he has done so, informing persons interested where they can obtain a copy of the direction, and giving them at least sixty days in which to make representations to the Board.
Subsection (5) says:
The Secretary of State shall publish the Board's report, together with a statement".
I know that that does not go as far as the Opposition would like, but, contrary to what might have been suggested, a considerable amount of information will be available to those who are properly connected with any matter at issue. Indeed, there is the 60-day period—a fairly long time—in which representations can be made.
Some of these provisions will make it likely—I hope it will be proposed to adjust the Bill if it does not actually work—that many of these issues will be resolved on a local basis resulting from day-to-day contact and trust between employers and employees, just as in this House we do not often refer to Standing Orders because we have come to understand how things work on the basis of familiarity and trust.
8.0 p.m.
Despite what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has said, I hope that

the Bill will create that sort of situation in each local area so that reference to the Bill itself will be relatively incidental. We need something of this sort. Then the situations for which Opposition Members envisage a public inquiry will not occur. I sincerely hope that will be the case because all of us in the House want a proper framework for the definition of dock work in the dockland areas. That is what the Bill attempts.

Mr. Harold Walker: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the points which have been made in the debate. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said about the docks industry being the most inquired into industry in this country. I shall not inflict on the House a recitation of the inquiries which have taken place over the years. But we are entitled to bear in mind that the inquiries which have taken place were not general inquiries but were related to specific issues.
There was the Bristow Committee, which was set up in 1969 and which made recommendations. Subsequently there were the Jones-Aldington talks and their recommendations. There were the recommendations of the National Ports Council and, more recently, the ACAS report. As the House will recall, we have said many times that the Bill is very much based on and takes account of the recommendations of these various committees and inquiries.
It is fair to recall that it was the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) himself who, speaking in Committee in general terms about inquiries, said that there had been far too many inquiries, particularly into planning matters. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the view that he expressed on that occasion because he went on to say "none the less"—and he talked of the reasons why he thought there should be provision for public inquiries in this situation.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) will be the first to recognise that we are here debating a specific proposal which has come from the House of Lords and that whether a Select Committee of this House would be an attractive alternative is not a question for me or for a Government Department. That


is a question for the House itself. The effectiveness or otherwise of Select Committees for dealing with these matters is very much a matter for the House.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh referred to the old Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said the 1946 Act had not been effective in eliminating dockland strife and that perhaps we should regard with some scepticism, not to say cynicism, its provisions and procedures. The hon. Member for Eastleigh pointed out that what we traditionally thought of as dockland and the dock industry had undergone a fundamental and radical change over the years and that we were now dealing with a concept of docklands and dock work different from that which prevailed when the 1946 Act was introduced.
Without in any way suggesting that the hon. Gentleman accepts the provisions that we have brought forward in this legislation, I think that implicit in his remarks is an acceptance that the 1946 legislation is no longer the proper way of dealing with the matters we are seeking to tackle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North properly pointed out, the present procedures we are seeking to change and the provisions for inquiries have not diminished or removed the conflict in dockland. That is a case for not returning to the procedures of the past.
I would refer to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft who recognised, along with his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, the radical changes which have taken place within the industry. I think he said "the radical extension of ports legislation into areas which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered port industries". The right hon. Gentleman criticised the various criteria in the Bill as ambiguous and uncertain.
He did not specify to which criteria he was referring. Did he mean the criteria to be taken into account in determining the scope of the proposed new scheme, or the objects of the scheme, or the procedure for classification under Clauses 7 and 8? I recall that these were matters—if that is what he meant—on which there was an enormous amount of debate in Committee. Criticisms were

expressed from both sides of the Committee to say that perhaps the criteria laid down were too inflexible and rigid. The right hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind about what he wants in the Bill.
A set of such firm and clearly defined criteria would have no effect other than imposing a rigidity over the whole system. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to acknowledge that there needs to be sufficient flexibility to take account of the varying situations and the different kinds of problems which arise in different areas as well as willingness to operate a different approach which will respond to those needs?
Here I am echoing the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston who saw the advantage of all these new arrangements being in the hands of those who have experience of the problems which arise in this industry in order to allow some scope for the exercise of judgment by those individuals. I hope that the House is not suggesting that we should not leave an adequate rôle for the judgment of those familiar with the industry.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Surely when the Minister discusses those involved in the industry making use of their judgment he must recognise that the Bill involves other industries which are not currently within the dock work scheme. The case for an inquiry surely becomes stronger since the Bill embodies industries such as distribution, warehousing and so on which do not currently come within dock work.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and made a creditable contribution to its work. I hope that he would be the last to overlook the provisions that are in the Bill for representations and the time during which representations may be made. There are also obligations both on the Board and on my right hon. Friend to take account of those representations. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in response to Opposition suggestions in Committee we strengthened those provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get some satisfaction from that.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft argued that the affirmative resolutions are no substitute for an inquiry and that


the inquiry procedure would give an opportunity for interested parties to make representations and would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to take account of views expressed when preparing the scheme or any extensions to it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to draw a parallel with motorway inquiries. I should have thought that the provision for these representations to be made to the Secretary of State would at least satisfy him that there would be an opportunity for interested parties to make representations and for my right hon. Friend to take them into account.
We have added to that the provision to which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred—the superimposing of the ultimate decision of Parliament. I should have thought that he was the last person to suggest that hon. Members were not responsive to and aware of the public interest and the sectional interests involved.

Mr. Prior: If they were, they would not be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Walker: That surprises me. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged in Committee and elsewhere that he has expressed the views of sectional interests, as he is doing tonight. It is up to him and other hon. Members to seek to persuade the House that those interests are not being adequately considered or safeguarded.
When the right hon. Gentleman draws a parallel with motorway inquiries, he overlooks entirely the fact that, unlike a motorway inquiry, which stops at the Secretary of State's desk and in which no one publicly knows why he disagrees with the inspector, there will be an ultimate stage, here and in another place. Issues will be thoroughly debated and the Secretary of State will be required to give the reasons for his decision and to say what representations have been made and what factors have led him to his conclusions.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill had few friends and listed its enemies, including the newspapers. If that is true, it is a tribute to the campaign of misrepresentation and distortion over a long period, encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. Once the Bill is on the statute book, some of us will face a major task in

dispelling some of the mythology built up by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and presenting the truth, not only to the dockers but to the other interests involved.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: Of course we have done our best to expose the shocking character of the Bill. Our debates over many months have shown that it has surprisingly few friends, even among Labour Members.
Although the public inquiry system is by no means perfect and cannot guarantee a fair and reasonable decision, it is at least some safeguard against the increasing power of the Executive and the increasing tendency for matters of public interest to be settled by small groups in the Civil Service and the Government. It is essential to retain the system initiated in 1946, and no case has been made againt it. The Minister's suggestion that it is cumbersome and the suggestion in another place that it is time-consuming and unnecessary are quite unacceptable. By abolishing public inquiries, they are saying that the Minister and the civil servants know best.
I have been shocked by what Ministers have said about public inquiry findings being ignored. My constituency has suffered from road building, and what worries my constituents most is that Ministers can ignore those findings. But how much worse it would be if there were no inquiry at all. The Government are seeking to push on one side the public inquiry concept in relation to the dock labour scheme.
8.15 p.m.
If they followed the logic of their argument, it would not be long before they would be trying to do away with public inquiries about roads, planning applications or many other matters. This is a slippery slope and we should resist being pushed down it. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) agrees about this aspect of the importance of public inquiries.

Mr. Spearing: I disagree.

Mr. Hayhoe: He disagrees. Presumably he is in favour of having some public inquiries, but not into dock work.
The Government have also urgued that the affirmative procedure is a valid sub-


stitute for the old system of public inquiry followed by the negative procedure. The Minister said that this would afford proper public scrutiny. Considering the cavalier way in which the Government have been treating Parliament, it is asking a good deal to expect us to believe that a one-and-a-half hour debate is sufficient to expose the truth of a complex situation.
The present Leader of the House is treating Parliament in a most oppressive fashion. He was an awful Secretary of State for Employment and he is now well on the way to being one of the most oppressive Leaders of the House. Sometimes one has a tinge of regret that Ted Short has gone. I could make no greater condemnation that that.
We should also recognise how the virtue of loyalty has been debased into near-absolute subservience by the so-called Labour moderates. Many Labour Members in their hearts and in their private conversations do not like this Bill. We know what Labour Peers, distinguished members of former Labour Governments, have said about the Bill. I am astonished that not one Labour Mem-

ber is prepared to vote for the continuation of public inquiries. Not one will join their former colleague, Lord George-Brown, in making this significant change in what he rightly described as the "Jack Jones (Special Responsibility) Bill". Not one Labour moderate will buck the party Whip and vote his true feelings by supporting the amendments. As a result, the power of the Executive increases.

My support for continuing the inquiry system stems partly from my real concern about this trend in lessening the power and influence of Parliament and increasing that of the Executive. This has been contributed to in great part by the present docile behaviour of the so-called Labour moderates. By any standards, this is a shocking Bill, utterly irrelevant to the problems of the moment. It will make matters worse rather than better. At least these amendments will improve the Bill and I hope that the Government's motion will be defeated.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 309.

Division No. 389.]
AYES
[8.20 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cartwright, John
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Edge, Geoff


Anderson, Donald
Clemitson, Ivor
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Archer, Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Ashley, Jack
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ennals, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Atkinson, Norman
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, John (Newton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Corbett, Robin
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cowans, Harry
Faulds, Andrew


Bates, Alf
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bean, R. E.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cronin, John
Flannery, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Bishop, E. S.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cryer, Bob
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boardman, H.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ford, Ben


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Forrester, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davidson, Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Freeson, Reginald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
George, Bruce


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Gilbert, Dr John


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Deakins, Eric
Ginsburg, David


Buchan, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Golding, John


Buchanan, Richard
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Gould, Bryan


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Gourlay, Harry


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dempsey, James
Graham, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Doig, Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Campbell, Ian
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Canavan, Dennis
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Grocott, Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, James A.
Hardy, Peter


Carter, Ray
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hart, Rt Hon Judith




Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mahon, Simon
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Hatton, Frank
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Marquand, David
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hooley, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Horam, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sillars, James


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Huckfield, Les
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Small, William


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Stallard, A. W.


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Molloy, William
Stoddart, David


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Moonman, Eric
Stott, Roger


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Greville
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Moyle, Roland
Swain, Thomas


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


John, Brynmor
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Noble, Mike
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Oakes, Gordon
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ogden, Eric
Tierney, Sydney


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tinn, James


Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Tomlinson, John


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tomney, Frank


Kelley, Richard
Ovenden, John
Torney, Tom


Kerr, Russell
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Urwin, T. W.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Padley, Walter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lambie, David
Park, George
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lamborn, Harry
Parker, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamond, James
Parry, Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pavitt, Laurie
Ward, Michael


Leadbitter, Ted
Pendry, Tom
Watkins, David


Lee, John
Perry, Ernest
Watkinson, John


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Weetch, Ken


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Weitzman, David


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Prescott, John
Wellbeloved, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
While, James (Pollock)


Litterick, Tom
Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Phillip


Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Whitlock, William


Loyden, Eddie
Richardson, Miss Jo
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Luard, Evan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


McCartney, Hugh
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roper, John
Woodall, Alec


MacKenzie, Gregor
Rose, Paul S.
Woof, Robert


Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted
Young, David (Bolton E)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Ryman, John



McNamara, Kevin
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Magee, Bryan
Selby, Harry
Mr. James Hamilton


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Richard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Alison, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Mark


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Peter
Carson, John


Arnold, Tom
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Channon, Paul


Awdry, Daniel
Bradford, Rev Robert
Churchill, W. S.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Baker, Kenneth
Brittan, Leon
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beith, A. J.
Brotherton, Michael
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cockcroft, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cope, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buck, Antony
Cordle, John H.


Biffen, John
Budgen, Nick
Cormack, Patrick


Biggs-Davison, John
Bulmer, Esmond
Corrie, John







Costain, A. P.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Crawford, Douglas
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Crowder, F. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Drayson, Burnaby
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Reid, George


Dunlop, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Durant, Tony
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, Sir William
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lane, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Farr, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin



Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Fry Peter
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sims, Roger


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sinclair, Sir George


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gilmour Rt. Hon Ian (Chesham)
Madel, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Males, Michael
Spence, John


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Sproat, Iain


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isle)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Griffiths, Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hall, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thatcher, Rt. Hon Margaret


Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thompson, George


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Havers, Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David
Trotter, Neville


Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Henderson, Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Higgins, Terence L.
Noll, John
Wakeham, John


Hodgson, Robin
Onslow, Cranley
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hooson, Emlyn
Osborn, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wall, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Warren, Kenneth


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Watt, Hamish


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, John


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Andrew


Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry







Wigley, Dafydd
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Hon George
Mr. Cecil Parkinson

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cast my vote for the Bill as it left the House of Commons. I vote for the Ayes, so the Ayes have it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 4, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert
but the whole of any area so designated must be comprised within a definable dock area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Lords Amendments Nos. 11 to 15, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 39, 41, 44 and 55.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The batch of amendments that we are about to debate deals with the issue of the cargo-handling zone. The combined effect of the amendments is to delete the provision for the cargo-handling zone and all the consequential provisions, including that for the extension of the zone, and to substitute a provision that " definable dock areas " may not extend beyond half a mile from harbours or harbour land as defined in Section 57—

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that many hon. Members do not wish to hear the Minister, but, speaking for myself, I do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Will any right hon. and hon. Members who do not desire to hear the moving of the amendment kindly withdraw from the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was explaining that the effect of the combined amendments was to substitute a provision that " definable dock areas " may not extend beyond half a mile from harbours or harbour land as defined in Section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964, and may not apply to small harbours as defined in Lords Amendment No. 13, or by subsequent changes made by affirmative resolution order under Amendment No. 14. I take it that in this case some of the objections which

were voiced to an affirmative procedure will not be redeployed.
These amendments would seek to substitute for the cargo-handling zone this much more restrictive concept of a "definable dock area", and would mean that work could be subject to examination and survey for classification purposes with a view to being brought into the new dock scheme only if it were undertaken within half a mile of a harbour or harbour land, providing that the harbour was not a small harbour as defined in Amendment No. 13.
Our first objection to the proposition in these amendments is that the proposed distance of half a mile is far too short. I do not think that anybody—in the light of what has been said about the changes that have taken place with the introduction of new technology and new handling methods in the industry—would suggest that modern dock work stops at 880 yards from a harbour as defined in Section 57 of the Harbours Act.
The Bristow Report of 1970 proposed that work of the sort accepted as dockers' work should be done by registered dock workers if it were done up to five miles from the waterside. The employers involved in this consideration actually agreed in this conclusion. I know that it has been argued, when I have previously quoted the Bristow Report in support of my contention as to the five-mile limit, that Bristow was concerned only with London. But, having re-studied the Bristow Report, I am of the view that the same sort of examination, had it been applied to Merseyside or Clydeside, would have been bound, on the geographical considerations, to come to very much the same conclusions.
Whether others share that view with me or not, it cannot be denied that, in several places other than London, dock scheme work is, as of now, being carried out as much more considerable distances than half a mile from the harbour area. In fact, at the Aintree groupage terminal in Liverpool, which is over four miles from the waterfront, registered dock workers are employed, and the present Dock Labour Scheme is applied to the work they perform.
There are many other places well over half a mile away from the docks where work is done which effectively replaces work formerly done by registered dock workers. Therefore the limit must clearly be more than half a mile, and the five miles suggested by Bristow seems to us to be right, bearing in mind that this was the limit of the survey procedure of Clause 8 of the Bill.
I turn next to the idea of a zone as opposed to a specified distance from the harbour or harbour land. It would, in my view, be quite wrong to limit the area within which work can be classified to an area a given distance from harbours or harbour land, even if we had agreement about an appropriate distance, and I do not contend that we have that. The exact limits of "harbours" and "harbour land" at any harbour may not always be known without doubt at any time. The information is not generally accessible and would leave employers and employees in very considerable doubt about whether their work could be surveyed by the Board. The mean high-water mark—which is the datum used in the Bill—at any place can always be determined from an ordnance survey map.
The limits of harbour land will change from time to time, because "harbour land" is defined in the 1964 Act as
land adjacent to a harbour and occupied wholly or mainly for the purposes of activities there carried on ".
That, obviously, is an area which can vary, not because of the scope of particular decisions of this House but simply because the harbour authority might choose to add another acre or 20 acres to its existing holdings. By doing that, it would change the area of harbour land to which the new concept suggested in the Lords amendment would apply.

Sir David Renton: Does the Secretary of State agree that, on the definition he has given us, the Palace of Westminster would be "harbour land"?

Mr. Booth: I was quoting the definition in the 1964 Act. That is the one which is the subject of this amendment. I do not argue that there is any significance in the fact that it covers the Houses of Parliament. The definition in the Bill does the same, in that we have tidal water

flowing past the Terrace. That is not a difference between the Bill as it stands and the amendment. Both would cover the Houses of Parliament and both would enable activities within our purview to be surveyed for classification if there were any dock work being carried on here. That is not a difference between us.
A "harbour" is defined by reference to Section 57 of the Harbours Act, and this means
any harbour whether natural or artificial, and any port, haven, estuary, tidal or other river or inland waterway navigated by sea-going ships".
Here we come to the essential difference between this Lords amendment and the original proposition contained in the Bill. Sea-going ships can travel as far as Nottingham up an inland waterway, which means that Nottingham would become an area which could be defined for the purpose, whereas in the Bill it is only those places which are within five miles of a major inland waterway, which is precisely defined in the Bill, or five miles from the high-tide mark which are subject to the survey. So that there is a sense in which this amendment could bring into survey areas which could not be surveyed under the terms of the Bill as it stands.
But I am more concerned about the proposition to exclude the small ports or harbours which are referred to in the amendment. In some ways, this is an even more difficult proposition to accept. I think that we can argue with some logic about choosing between one geographical definition and another, and we can have a very proper difference of opinion about whether four miles, five miles or six miles is right. But it is very different to do what the amendment does in respect of the small ports and seek to set up a definition which is related not to geographical area but to matters such as the maximum size of ship which can be accommodated, the amount of dock work done in the port, or other criteria such as the depth of the navigable channel, without any reference to the sort of criteria that we use in the Bill which are much more closely related to proper considerations of what should be registered dock work One of the tests applied in the Lords amendment concerns the period within which ships can enter a port. The effect wouldbe almost ludicrous in many cases.
The Bill already contains adequate and satisfactory procedures to deal with small harbours. It covers the small harbour question more effectively than the criteria contained in Lords Amendment No. 13. Clauses 7 and 8 already provide for the Board to take account of all relevant considerations and in particular whether the work requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will agree that that is relevant when considering whether work should be classified.
8.45 p.m.
The Government's general position on small ports—which has been stated repeatedly—is that the absolute exclusion of particular places, either by name or by reference to some standard criteria of the kind proposed in the amendment, is not a sensible way to proceed because there is such a wide variety of factors which could be relevant. The Bill does not require classification of the work of a port if that port is too small to warrant arrangements for a permanent labour force or if there are other relevant considerations.
I recognise that there are a number of small ports which, by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited for the dock work regulation scheme. I would not lay before the House a Bill which would have the effect of requiring every small port to be included in the scheme if those factors did not apply. That is agreed by many who have spoken on the issue. They believe that the factors in the Bill, particularly that requiring the efficient performance of a permanent labour force, should not apply to a number of small ports.
Criteria of the kind proposed in the amendment would lead to arbitrary distinctions between ports. For example, in Amendment No. 13, paragraph 2D(a) refers to average hours worked on loading and unloading cargo to and from ships. Under that criteria the Port of London and many other scheme ports could be excluded because many of the dock workers work only a short time in a year on ships. They spend the rest of their time working on the quay

or in warehouses and the average time worked would be less than the 28 hours a week allowed—allowing for four weeks holiday. On the other hand, the criteria would include a port where one man worked for 40 hours a week for only 33 weeks in the year.
If one tries to apply that rigidly, one makes a nonsense of the definition of small ports and one excludes from the scheme places which, on any objective test by people with any knowledge of the industry, must obviously be ports which fall within any scheme to decasualise dock working.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I have listened with great care to the Minister's words. He has repeated what he told the House earlier—that it is not the Government's intention to include large numbers of very small ports. Nevertheless, does he accept that it would be a great burden on these ports and harbours and those who work in them to have to make returns within three months, as I understand it, to the local board and put their case? Why should they have to go through that procedure? Why can he not exclude them now?

Mr. Booth: The ports which are engaged in loading and unloading vessels will have to make a return to the Board. The basic reason for that, which I commend to the House, is that a proper distinction should be drawn in legislation between loading and unloading vessels and other forms of dock work. On the question of loading and unloading vessels, a fairly straightforward case can be gleaned from the basic facts relating to the quantities, the times, and a number of other issues. That does not apply to much other dock work. Therefore, the Bill properly draws a distinction.
In the case of many small ports the tonnage factor alone would rule out any prima facie assumption that they require a permanent dock labour force to perform the work efficiently. The requirement to make that submission is not an unduly arduous one. It is useful in that it isolates loading and unloading from the much wider area of cargo handling with which the Bill is concerned.
The requirement also has the advantage of imposing a much tighter time scale. The returns have to be in within a


set time of the Bill becoming an Act. The more detailed and complex consideration of reviewing other types of dock work is better handled in a different way.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point that in some areas there are those who will say that the place at which they work is obviously not a port and that they will feel it rather unreasonable even to have to return the basic information about the cargo they load and unload. However, it is better that that aspect should be isolated than that they should come under the survey at large.

Mr. A. P. Costain: The Secretary of State makes it all sound so simple from the theoretical angle. Dungeness is in my constituency. It is or it is not a port. I assume that it is not. However, because it will make up the coastline and build coastal defences it will have ships unloading sand and ballast, probably over a number of years. Does that qualify it for the description of a port? There could be quite a large tonnage, but of only one commodity, being unloaded for one specific purpose. Does that mean that the five-mile rule will apply?

Mr. Booth: Loading for a particular construction site is not dealt with under that part of the Bill. I was addressing myself to the question of a small port. As I understand it, separate provision is made in one of the schedules to cover the unloading of materials for particular construction sites.
I was dealing with the distinction between Clauses 7, 8 and 9. This is valuable, because in practice we can distinguish between loading and unloading vessels and other forms of cargo handling. It is useful that the people involved in that should know the extent and the time scale so that they know where they stand, leaving the more complex issue of the survey of other cargo-handling work in the zone to be dealt with under a separate clause.
I hope that the House will accept that some of the criteria advanced in this set of Lords amendments in place of the cargo-handling zone concept, whatever other merits they have have, would result in an intolerable situation in many ports and harbours. They would bring into areas of survey those which the Bill would seek to exclude and take out of the scheme

places which everybody who has looked at cargo handling and the whole problem up to now has agreed to be suitable for a dock work regulation scheme. Therefore, I hope that the House will support us in disagreeing with the Lords amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As the Secretary of State said, we have now come to the most important and serious group of amendments, going to the heart of the Bill. The piquancy of the debate is made all the sharper by the fact that we have just had a tied vote.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) was the Labour Member who was missing. I do not know what kept the right hon Gentleman out of the Division Lobby. Perhaps it was the still, quiet voice of moderate conscience, or a rather good first-growth claret. Whatever it is, I hope that the reasons will still apply next time and that perhaps one of his colleagues will also be missing.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wants to receive answers to his letters.

Mr. Baker: These are domestic difficulties. Before I deal with the arguments I should remind the House that, as I frequently said in Committee, I am a director of Geest, a company involved in cargo handling.
I have said that we have come to the essence of the Bill, which is the corridor and the small ports. In my view, and I think in the view of all those who have been dealing with the Bill, certainly of their Lordships, this is the most important set of amendments. We have opposed from the very start the whole concept of a corridor in dealing with the problems of the dock industry. We have accepted that it is an industry with a unique and difficult problem, an industry which has been subjected to the most rapid technological change. In 1945 there were about 100,000 registered dockers. Today there are about 30,000, and it is generally recognised that about 2,000 of them are


probably redundant in the sense that there is no regular employment for them.
The first seat for which I fought in 1964 was a dockland constituency, Poplar. Even then it had declined as a dock work area, but it has since declined even more. The decline is not due to the nefarious activities of the cold-storage industry or to businesses building warehouses for the breaking up of cargoes inland. There has been such an enormous rundown because of technological change.
The simple main reason is containerisation and the continuing and expanding use of roll-on/roll-off ferries. It is estimated by the employers and unions that by 1980 the work force needed will probably be down to about 25,000. That is because of the containerisation of the South African and New Zealand trade, not because of employers building cold stores back in the hinterland well away from the docks.
We must recognise the reasons. Only in that way will a constructive policy be formulated for dealing with the problems of dockland. Those problems will not be dealt with by this Bill and its piecemeal approach. One cannot separate dockers in the dock areas from the port installations. The investment in men has to go with the investment in resources, and so the Bill looks at only one side of the coin.
9.0 p.m.
It is profoundly wrong to try to meet the problems of great technological change by giving dockers the legal right to claim other men's jobs. I believe that the proposals worked out by Mr. Jack Jones and Lord Aldington in 1972 were basically on the right lines in that they recognised that there was a substantial surplus of dockers particularly in London, to a small extent in Liverpool, and to some extent in Hull and other ports. As a result the Jones-Aldington proposals, as they became known, provided for substantial extra redundancy payments to surplus dockers. That resulted in a rundown of between 8,000 and 9,000 men in the dock industry.
I believe that a scheme of that nature is needed now to deal with the problem. That problem will not go away; nor will it be solved by giving the dockers the legal right to claim other men's jobs.
The essence of the Bill is the corridor. We have consistently pointed out how absurd it is to have a corridor running around the coastline of Britain, England and Wales and up the tidal rivers—

Mr. Douglas Crawford: The hon. Member said that he was talking about Great Britain, England and Wales. He must therefore mean that Great Britain by definition means Scotland.

Mr. Baker: I am quite sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks, but it is an absurd suggestion.
It is wrong to have such a corridor round the coastline. In Scotland the corridor will be so wide that it will include most of the islands and will manage to join the conurbations of Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is absurd. I know that I carry the Scottish National Members with me on that point.
The rest of the country suffers, too. The corridor takes in that well-known port of Taunton and the harbours of the New Forest. It laps around the outskirts of Doncaster racecourse. It goes halfway through London Airport. It is an absolute monstrosity and an absurdity. We have pointed out many time that drawing lines in this way, in a sort of latter-day colonial exercise, is not the way to deal with a major industrial problem.
I believe therefore that their Lordships were right to restrict the corridor to half a mile. The Secretary of State said that half a mile was too short, but he has drawn the figure of five miles out of the air. He thinks that one and a half miles is too short, but he has no idea because he rests his case upon the extraordinary Bristow Report of 1970.
That report, upon which the dust should be allowed to accumulate, has betn dug up to justify the Bill. But it dealt specifically and exclusively with London—it was commissioned as a result of the London dock strike—and it is disingenuous to say that it should apply equally to Hull or Liverpool. The report recommended a solution for London and for London alone.
The right hon. Gentleman then spent some time dealing with small harbours. He said that the definitions, on the advice he has received, would include ports which are not small harbours or


parts of ports which are small harbous. The legal advice we have received is that the definition does not bear that interpretation. If it does, no doubt their Lordships will have another opportunity of tightening their definition.
The purpose of the amendment on small harbours is to exclude small harbours. We recognise, as do their Lordships, that the effect of the Bill on small harbours will be catastrophic. They render a vital service to the local communities, but their trade is sporadic, irregular in operation and small in volume. Therefore, flexible arrangements are necessary.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I think it should be recognised that the Bill is not wholeheartedly supported by all Labour Members. We shall wander through the Lobby, as is our way, in a reluctant posture.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We noticed.

Mr. Lomas: I do not want the Scottish nationalists to intervene.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I dare say the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. Lomas: I say to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that if I had been in charge of the House, I should have scrubbed the Bill, because I do not think it will do much good.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: You are telling me.

Mr. Lomas: I take the view that it the Conservatives, or others on the Opposition Benches, would only be a little more responsible in their approach to these matters, some arrangement could have been arrived at between them and the usual channels—namely, the Whips Office.

Mr. Baker: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his courage. Here is a Member who is opposed to the Bill. He finds it distasteful and he has the courage to get up and say so, but when we divide this evening he will troop through the Lobby and support the Government Whips.
He should have the courage of his convictions. If he believes that the Bill is bad, he should vote against it. He has his own conscience to answer, his own union to answer and his own constituents to

answer. It is exceedingly cowardly for anyone to get up in the Chamber and say "I disagree, but I shall be craven and go along with the Whips". The House always respects Members who get up and say " I disagree and then show their disagreement in the Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not use the expression "cowardly". It is an unparliamentary expression.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) used the expression in a general sense. He said "cowardly" of Members. He never particularised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair must be allowed to decide. I am sure that it the remark has been misconstrued, it will be withdrawn.

Mr. Baker: If I used it generally, it had better stand in the record. If I used it personally, I unreservedly withdraw it.

Sir Anthony Meyer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a rule of the House that a Member's vote must agree with his voice? In view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), does that not bind him in his subsequent vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That does not arise at this moment.

Mr. Lomas: Perhaps I should make it clear that in my 12 years in the House of Commons, even during the days of the European debate when we had a six-line Whip, Tory, Labour and Liberal, I voted according to my conscience. In fact, I voted for Europe. I shall continue to vote according to my conscience tonight. I shall wait with some anticipation to hear what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone has to say about the Bill.

Mr. Baker: I shall try to persuade the hon. Gentleman to vote with my right hon. and hon. Friends or to abstain.
I do not believe that the Bill addresses itself to the problems of the docks. It will have harmful effects on the cargo-handling industry. Its various provisions will produce endless opportunity for trade union disputes and disputes within unions. We have said this time and time again and our view has been extremely clear.
We believe that to impose a system of permanent employment in small harbours, which would require the payment of a labour force for five days a week whether or not there was work available, will mean a substantial increase in costs if, on the odd days when a ship is in harbour, the present speed of ship turn-round is maintained.
This is a particular problem for many of the small ports in Scotland and the islands on the West Coast of Scotland. The Scottish islands and isolated communities of the Scottish Highlands, which are served by the small ports in that region, are in a particularly vulnerable position as their ports are virtually their lifeline. The dock workers in the major ports cannot claim that those ports have attracted traffic from the larger ports. Not even the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) can make that claim.
The Secretary of State for Employment today and on Monday afternoon in the guillotine debate the Secretary of State for Social Services made great play of the argument that the Bill was essential. Perhaps I may also address these remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas). Essential for whom? Is it essential for the National Union of Railwaymen? No because that union has been excluded from the Bill by the exclusion of British Rail's docks and ports.
Is it essential for the National Freight Corporation? No. This, the biggest body handling the most cargo in the country, has been excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Is it essential for the drivers' section of the Transport and General Workers Union? No, because I understand that the Government will accept an amendment excluding driving in dock areas.
Is it essential for the General and Municipal Workers Union? No, because much of its case has been met by the veto cut-off in the year 1967.
Is it essential for the Labour Party? No, it is not even essential for the Labour Party, because it was not in its manifesto for either February or October 1974. Therefore, this is not a commitment which the Government must meet to

finish their programme. It was not in their programme when they went to the country in February and October 1974.
Is it essential for the economy? Would it create one more job? No. Will it enable goods to move more quickly either to or from the ports? No.
Will it regenerate the wasted dockland of London? No, of course not. Indeed, since the Bill has been in their Lordships' House, Frank Cousins has produced the Second Report of the Joint Port Trade Development Committee. That is an important report for the dead areas of the East End of London, which are decaying further daily. That report does not even mention the Bill. It does not mention the corridor. It does not say that the corridor is the salvation of East London.
It comes up with much better constructive proposals—in fact, to increase payments to the surplus dockers in London and to encourage investment in that dying area. What investment will be encouraged when everyone knows that the corridor is killing investment? Who will build warehouses or cold stores or any business handling goods in the five-mile corridor? No one. That is the reality. Therefore, it is not even essential for London.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a need to examine with care the question of corridors. We discussed this matter in Committee at great length. I have some difficulty in understanding the objectives of the amendment when I see what Lord Sandford said in the other place on Third Reading on 8th November. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider his words. The noble Lord said:
But again as with classification orders, in respect of dock work it will be the new Scheme and the Amendments thereto which will actually designate the dock labour area within the definable area that may be defined in due course as a Dock Labour Scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th November 1976; Vol. 377, c. 43.]
I have interpreted those words to mean that the definition of the half mile around a dock area will be dependent upon the scheme as it is developed. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should take from Parliament the defining of the corridor, whatever it might be, and leave it in the hands of the Board to devise the scheme?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member was on the Committee and he knows that he is making a false point. In fact, the definition of five miles is fairly precise, as the definition of half a mile is precise. The only one thing which is certain about this Bill is the way the line of the corridor runs.
The Secretary of State has said that there are many other hurdles over which the local docks boards will have to get in their examination and reclassification of premises. They have a wide degree of discretion. We are not suggesting that power should be taken from this House. We are trying to simplify this Bill and make it less damaging.
The Government conceived and gave birth to this Bill in order to satisfy one particular interest. But we want things to be done in the interests of the general public and not just of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Bill will hand over responsibilities for the future to a tiny, tightly-knit and perhaps questionably directed section of the community. Those are not my words. They were spoken by a former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in another place. This Bill is friendless. It is the shabbiest Bill of a very shabby Session.
I was absolutely staggered to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Garston in our debate last Monday. The hon. Member spoke many times in Committee upstairs and I admit that he speaks for the dockers' interests better and more eloquently than anyone in this House. He has made his interests absolutely clear from the word go. On Monday, he spoke of the possible and growing likelihood of a clash between the Lords and the Commons. He said,
If the House of Lords persists in its attitude of making the decisions of the House of Commons abortive, it may compel people in the docks industry outside to take action against the decisions of the other place."—[Official Report, 8th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 72.]
As always, the hon. Member was frank and open. But I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees with that statement. I ask him to reflect on it, and when he winds up this debate to say whether he agrees with it, or whether he thinks that it is surpremely irresponsible as I do. I hope that the Secre-

tary of State will dissociate himself from that statement.
This Bill is irrelevant. It is absurd that when the country is going through a great economic crisis, we should be wasting our time debating a measure of this sort, which will do nothing to make us richer or stronger. It will not create jobs, nor will it make us more efficient. It has nothing to do with national recovery, and will result only in endless opportunities for dispute between unions. It is unnecessary, and therefore should not pass. These clauses which we are debating are crucial, and I believe that the House would be well advised to agree with the Lords.

Mr. Leadbitter: The suggestion, made from time to time, that this Bill is shabby and ill-considered is highly emotive and interesting to listen to—occasionally. However, at this stage, after 140 hours of consideration, we must get down to dealing with the Bill in such a way as to get it working, within reasonable time, to the advantage of the ports and harbours industry.
It occurs to me that their Lordships were in a dilemma about the half-mile definition, and it is no good the House of Commons asserting, on the one hand, the problem of the five-mile limit without on the other, accepting that there were terrific problems of a kind which their Lordships recognised about the half-mile definition. If we were to agree to the amendment considerable damage would be done to dock work relationships, bearing in mind that part of dock work activity is in what might be called recognisable and self-evident dock work areas. Some people are already working four or five miles away from known port areas. Therefore it would be futile to accept the amendment and find ourselves, on that one count alone, presented with all the problems that I have briefly described.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that the purpose of the amendment was not to take away from the House of Commons the authority that it has to define an area for which the proposed Board can work out a dock scheme. Lord Sandford said in the other place—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was always my understanding that one could not quote


in the House of Commons what was said in the House of Lords unless one quoted what had been said by a Minister there. I am not trying to get at anyone in particular, but I should like to know the rule. It was my impression, at least until recently, that one could quote a Minister in the other place but not one of their Lordships who was not a Minister. May we be told the position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position is slightly equivocal, because it is broadly correct that it has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but either there is a rule or there is not. This matter has been raised many times, and it was always my understanding that one could quote in the Commons what a Minister in the Lords had said, but one could not quote one of their Lordships who did not have a ministerial appointment. I am not being pedantic or awkward. This is a vital matter. We can sometimes get into difficulties. I am not getting at my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), because the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) quoted Lord George-Brown.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In fact, "Erskine May" says:
The daily publication of the debates in Parliament offers a strong temptation to disregard this rule.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find myself in the unusual position of supporting the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Is not the true position that when it comes to quoting speeches in the current Session one can quote ministerial speeches verbatim, but if one wishes to quote the speeches of other than Ministers in the other place one should paraphrase them?

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Would not this be a case of an extract from Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire"?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) intervened. There are historic reasons for the practice that is adopted. I should expect the right hon. and learned Gentle-

man, as a good House of Commons man, to understand that this is not a silly issue but one of vital importance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is correct in his reasons for it. In its original form—this is from the 19th Edition of "Erskine May", at page 424—it was:
to guard against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the party assailed.
That is the point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not want to get at Lord George-Brown and I do not want to stretch the rules. I now know that I would be banned from doing that. That is all.

Mr. Crawford: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are living through the last days of Pompeii. Could we please forget the niceties of the rules and get on with the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely for the Chair to decide whether the House has been satisfied with the rulings which the Chair has given, which I hope perhaps the House now is.

Mr. Leadbitter: Now that we have got rid of that important matter we might be able to get on with the Bill. I hope that those who observe the proceedings of this House will understand that often hon. Members would be better preoccupied with the business of the House than with historical anachronisms.
If I may paraphrase what was said in another place—taken from the Official Report, of course—and seeking not to incriminate anyone, no matter who he is or how he got to the other place, I would suggest that I might be allowed to come back to this important point. I do not think that there is any difference on either side of the House in terms in examining this thorny problem of the corridor and the half-mile limit. I may have a great deal to say about the five-mile corridor, but I shall not be so dishonest as to indicate that I feel so strongly about it that I will consider whether I shall not vote.
I find that here in the House of Commons, as we found in Standing Committee, we have a serious problem. We can accept without recrimination that there is no perfection about any kind of solution to such a problem which comes before us.
In other words, we have to consider both the five-mile corridor and the half-mile area around a definable port area. Both present the House with major problems and I seek to develop part of those problems further because I feel that they have grave consequences for everyone. It will need a great deal of patience in the months to come. No doubt there will be a great deal of heartache. Later hon. Gentlemen may say, "I told you so. You were wrong". But that is the history of the House of Commons and the history of democracy.
We have a situation where the noble Lord in the other place thinking about the matter with great care, had to confess that they had overlooked that the same consideration applied to the definition or designation of these dock areas as applied to the definition and classification of dock work. In other words, one had to provide in the Bill for two stages in each category. In the way in which Schedule 3 listed what might and might not be classified as dock work, other processes in the Bill—culminating in classification orders in Clause 11, now Clause 13—specified in point of policy and in particular cases that what were the things that could be classified were in fact to be classified. That is what the noble Lord said.
In other words, it was expressed in the other place that what had to be classified had to be determined in accordance with Schedule 3 and, therefore, it was quite clear that there had to be a second stage of determination when the scheme eventually came before the House of Commons for Parliament to decide upon the scheme.
Therefore the noble Lord related that particular kind of development to the nature of the definition of dock work area, namely, that it should be left to the board to determine and define the dock area in the scheme so that classification orders can come to the House of Commons. Would it be sensible to give the Board rather than this House the responsibility of defining dock areas or of classifying dock work without a definition of dock areas?
9.30 p.m.
On Third Reading in another place, these words were used:
But again, as with classification orders in respect of dock work it will be the new Scheme

and the Amendments thereto which will actually designate the dock labour area".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th November 1976; Vol. 377, c. 43.]
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone said that the amendment would not take power from the House of Commons, but that quotation shows that the argument is that, because it is difficult to define a dock area, the responsibility should be given to the Board. If that is the purport of the amendment, the outcome will be worse than the controversial determination of the corridor.
I concede that there will be problems about the corridor, but the idea is supported by those directly affected, who do dock work and have been deprived of it by the removal of industries from the dock area. That is a fundamental reason for at least two decades of bad industrial relations in the docks. Increasing insecurity and the reduction of the labour force from 340,000 to 92,000 in a few years created that problem.
If we have to choose between an amendment giving the responsibility for definition to the Board, and the five-mile scheme, with all its difficulties, we should surely choose that course to which every union on the TUC Ports Committee gives its wholehearted support.

Mr. Crawford: Not every one.

Mr. Leadbitter: There is no question about my flexibility. Every group in a democracy contains people who do not agree with the general view, but I repeat that the TUC Ports Committee and all the unions affected were in total agreement.

Mr. Crawford: The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill had the wholehearted support of the trade union movement. The Transport and General Workers' Union in Perth is opposed to the Bill.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have conceded that there can be no perfection in any situation. The House will vote tonight one way or the other and it is the responsibility of those who are in disagreement with the result to accept the democratic vote. When a vote is taken and a principle accepted, every good trade unionist will accept that decision and uphold the rule of law.
This matter has been thoroughly debated in the House. The spokesman in another place had grave doubts about the amendment and could not define what he sought to do in it. I do not intend to go into the history of the docks. It would be too long a story. But the more we know about the history, the more we realise the clarity and sense of the Bill. The House must not be allowed to jump the gun.
The Bill is in two parts. One part lays down the statutory requirements and provides for flexible democratic representation. I do not see a great deal coming from the Bill inside two years, because the old scheme goes back to 1967 and we are a few years late in updating it and bringing it into line with the modernisation in the docks.
The other part of the Bill is the scheme. That is where the modifying influences will come in to provide the kind of security of employment enjoyed by estate agents, solicitors and doctors and many other groups. There is nothing wrong with a Bill that seeks to provide security of employment for the people who handle the materials which create the wealth of the nation.
In this revolutionary process there is an admission that we cannot get perfect answers where there has been a bad history of industrial relations. The Bill will bring confidence to the industry and if it is handled with patience by the other side, as we have handled it with the trade union movement, it will be successful.
If the five-mile corridor raises problems, are those problems sufficiently large to justify replacing that provision by an amendment upon which the House cannot decide a definable area and upon which the other place had doubts? Are we to pass the buck to the National Dock Labour Board and ask it, not the House of Commons, to define an area before getting on with the classification of work? If we do that, instead of waiting two years for answers we shall wait five years, and that will test the patience of the working people too much.

Sir David Renton: If the arguments put by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) were to become of general application, the country and its labour forces would find themselves in a

very remarkable situation. I want to make an analogy between dock workers, or at any rate those for whom the hon. Gentleman was speaking, and farm workers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: And lawyers?

Sir D. Renton: We can apply it to any section the hon. Gentleman would like. I hope that he will hear me out.
The Government's proposal is that because certain technological changes have been affecting certain dock workers, they and their sons—this introduces an hereditary principle—should be given the opportunity of going into work already being done by other workers. In farming, too, there have been great technological changes, and we now have many fewer farm workers. Is the hon. Member for Hartlepool prepared to argue that therefore farm workers who find themselves displaced, perhaps through lack of skill in the new technologies, should be found jobs in other areas of work, some not akin to farm production—let us say, canning factories—and that their sons should be found jobs there, too? That would be a preposterous situation.
That the Government should try to extend the hereditary principle in this way is quite remarkable. I know that they extended it for tenant farmers' sons, and that some years ago the hereditary peerage was turned into a closed shop. Fair enough! But for the hon. Gentleman to argue in principle as he did is not within the realms of reality.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree about three propositions which are strictly relevant to these amendments, which are crucial. Acts of Parliament should, first, be necessary in the general public interest; secondly, they should he intrinsically clear and workable; thirdly, they should do justice to all the people affected by them—and in this case I mean not only dock workers and their sons, but the people whose jobs might be lost. The clause which the Lords suggest should be altered does not pass those tests, and the Government should be grateful to another place for getting them off the hook that Mr. Jack Jones got them on to, because that is the simple reality of the situation.
The truth is, as has been said on both sides of the House, that the workers in


the country are very much divided about the Bill, including some dock workers and including members of the T & GWU. This is one of those occasions when the Lords are on the side of the workers and the workers are on the side of the Lords. [Laughter.] Before the hon. Members laugh, they had better listen to what the chief shop steward at the largest cold store in Europe, which is in my constituency, wrote to me last Friday. His letter said:
Once again we are obliged to prevail upon you to support us in our campaign with regard to the Dock Work Bill.
Contrary to suggestions made in the local Press letters, we sought your support in the earlier stages and continue to do so.
They did indeed seek my support, and I gave it to them. I shall not bore the House by reading out the long speech that I made on Report in support of those workers.
The letter was written when the intention to use the guillotine had been announced, and it goes on to say:
We are deeply concerned with the possibilities of the operating of the guillotine and the consequent lack of time it leaves for correspondence.
We know now, that, of course, alas, the guillotine motion was carried. The senior shop steward—this is my justification for having risen, Mr. Deputy Speaker—concludes by saying:
Therefore, we must take this opportunity to ask you to give your wholehearted support to the amendments made by the Lords which would exclude Peterborough and Salvesens from being included in the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) in his place. I told him that in the course of my speech I intended to refer to his constituency—which adjoins mine, I am happy to say—and that I would be referring to the hon. Gentleman, to his part on this Bill, and to his position in his constituency.
The hon. Gentleman has had similar representations from those same shop stewards representing the workers and their factory. He has been asked, as I understand it, to take the sort of line that I have taken against the Bill. He has declined to do so. He has voted for the Bill consistently. The hon. Gentleman is in another party, and I say to him with deep respect, but without being fulsome, that as a constituency neighbour I have

respected in general the way in which he has handled our boundary problems and our common interests for our constituents. But I say to him that his votes and everybody else's on this group of amendments will be a supreme test of political integrity and courage.

Mr. Michael Ward: Is it not incorrect to say that Christian Salvesen is included in the Bill, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said? Surely it is quite clearly excluded by the Bill, and it would only be possible to include it if there were a most elaborate and complicated public examination procedure undertaken for it to be included.
Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that, despite the fact that I have invited my constituents who work at this plant to make representations to me, in the nine or 10 months since the Bill, was published, I have had only one letter from the chief shop steward to whom he has referred? The Peterborough trades council has unanimously supported the view that I have taken on the Bill and the view of all the trade unions which nationally support the Bill.

Sir D. Renton: No constituent of mine has to write me more than one letter to get my help if I consider that that help should be given. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the effect of the Bill on that particular factory and upon his constituency and mine. There is a geographical doubt about the distances involved, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has dragged me into the boring process of having to repeat something that I mentioned on Second Reading. I hope I shall be forgiven for repeating that I wrote to the Minister asking him to clarify this position. The Minister quite rightly pointed out to me in a letter:
There is a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to extend the five-mile cargo-handling zone by Order. Any such Order would, however, be subject to approval in draft by both Houses of Parliament. This is conceived as being very much a reserve power.
I grant that point. The letter continues:
There is certainly no present intention to make early use of it.
Obviously, that did not satisfy my constituents. The threat was left hanging over their heads.
But the Lords have removed that threat entirely, because they have completely removed from Clause 4 the badly drafted, wide reaching and, I think, vicious provisions of subsections (3) to (7).
I take it, therefore, that no one can reasonably dispute after what I have said that the Lords are on the side of the workers and that the workers are on the side of the Lords in this matter.
I ask the House to bear in mind that the Government seem to be legislating in what appears to me, not without some experience, to be entirely the wrong manner. We ought to be proud of the way in which we legislate. Certainly we should not confine ourselves to legal niceties in our approach to the task but there is no point in indulging in legal nastiness either, and that is what these subsections of Clause 4 did. They introduced the strangest legal fictions.
For example, subsection (4), which the Lords say should be left out, reads:
For purposes of this section 'the sea' includes any area submerged at mean high water and … also includes, so far as the tide flows at mean high water, an estuary or arm of the sea and the waters of any channel, creek, bay or river".
Until I read that subsection, I had no idea that my constituency was on the sea. I had always thought that it was 40 miles inland. However, the River Great Ouse is tidal up to the boundary of my constituency, to Earith, where there is the great sluice which divides the salt-water section from the fresh-water section of the river; and five miles from that sluice takes us to the little country town of St. Ives.
After I spoke about this matter in the House before, I had representations from workers at St. Ives saying "Thank goodness you made that point. We do not want a lot of dockers coming into St. Ives and taking the work from us"—[Laughter.] It is all very well for Government supporters to laugh, but St. Ives is a very pleasant place—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Taking jobs away where there are too few jobs already. What is funny about that?

Sir D. Renton: It also has a very good golf course, which would suit the dockers and their sons. So this is not a laughing matter.
The Lords have put all this right. They have driven some sense into the Bill. They have removed the legal fictions—what I call the legal nastiness.
The worst nastiness of all, in my opinion, occurred in Clause 4(6), which enabled the Secretary of State by order, no doubt backed by the Whips, to make any part of Great Britain, in the Bill as originally drafted, into "a cargo-handling zone". Rightly, the Lords have got rid of that expression "cargo-handling zone" altogether. It is a most unsuitable expression, especially in the circumstances. In its place they have put the expression "definable dock area". That is a bit more certain.
They have also explained exactly how it should be defined, and not ungenerously. After all, if we say an area within half a mile of any of our docks, that gives the dockers opportunities for doing work which no one has contemplated their doing so far in the handling of cargo.
I know that many Government supporters have serious conscientious doubts about the original drafting of the Bill. I implore them to consider whether it would not be much more in the interests of workers and less divisive within the Labour movement, for which the Secretary of State tries to do his best, if he were to let the Lords get him off the hook.
If we accept the proposition that whenever there is technological change there should be not a natural but an artificial adjustment introduced by compulsive laws passed by both Houses, we would bring Parliament into great contempt. The credibility of Parliament, I regret to say as one of the older Members of the House, is sometimes much in question. If we pass measures such as Clause 4 as it was before the Lords amended it, that credibility will rapidly disappear. I suggest that this is a crucial test of the credibility of the legislative method in our parliamentary democracy.
With deep sincerity, I ask the Secretary of State—even at this late stage and bearing in mind the mixed feelings that we know so many of his supporters have—to reconsider the matter. In the House of Lords there are men who are undoubtedly wise and they are not all Tories. On this occasion the working


Tory peers were in the minority among those who voted. They were dependent upon the Liberal peers for support and sometimes the Tories supported the Liberals. Both parties were supported by men of no party, august people sitting on the Cross-Benches.
In such circumstances it would be utterly wrong to seek refuge in the cheap party jibe that the Lords have flouted the majority in the Commons. They have done nothing of the kind. The Lords have done a lot to try to save the reputation of Parliament. I implore the Secretary of State to think again.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) declared an interest as a director of Geest. I declare an interest in that I represent—and have done for longer than any other hon. Member—a dock area. I have represented that dock area for the past 32 years. I am also the only hon. Member who for between 30 and 40 years has been a fully paid up member of three trade unions, from which I get no subvention whatsoever, no grant, nothing at all. I therefore speak without being tied to anybody other than my constituents.
The Bill arises from an incident which took place in my constituency. Some hon. Members will remember the Chobbam Farm incident at the time of the Chobham strikes. On that occasion the Official Solicitor, of whom few of us had heard, was dug up to rescue the then Government from the difficulties and problems they had created by the arrest of five dockers. I declare an interest in and a knowledge of this subject.
In my constituency there are two or three large warehouse freezing depots, including one of the biggest in Europe. That was why I challenged the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to name his warehouse. I wondered whether the warehouse in his constituency was larger than that in mine.

10.0 p.m.

Sir David Renton: It is the Christian Salvesen depot on the Woodstone industrial estate near Peterborough.

Mr. Lewis: Mine is Frigoscandia, which is Norwegian or Swedish. It has a large area of the old Temple Mill railway depot which is now given over to

freight services. All this is material to the issue. I have the docks and the dock workers. I have Chobham Farm where incidents which were prophesied have actually happened. I have freight warehouses and freezing depots and I have members in each of the unions concerned.
Originally there was an argument, as Temple Mill was a railway depot and the membership was National Union of Railwaymen, about whether that union should be responsible. That was resolved and the Transport and General Workers' Union got the membership within the warehousing and packaging and the freezing depot. Then we had the Chobham Farm affair.
As a lifetime friend of the dockers I know their history. I fought and suffered with them. I remember the days of the rats and all the rest of it. I know how they were hired and fired. I know that by hard work and trade union organisation they dragged themselves up from the gutter and established themselves. I shall not attack them.
Most powerful organisations and most powerful people—whether they be in the House of Lords, whether they be lawyers or political parties—feel their power and hold on to it. This applies to the Whips on this side and to the Tory Whips, to the lawyers on this side and to the Tory lawyers. The dockers have found their power and, rightly, they want to hold on to it, just as the Whips do, as the Tory Party does and as the Labour Party does. I do not blame them.
This matter must be looked at fairly and properly to ensure, if the dockers are to use their muscle and endeavour, that they use it in a fair, proper and reasonable way. If they do that, I am all for them. If they seek to use it to improve their hours, wages and working conditions, I am all for them.
I have seen the shop stewards and the workers at both places—the dockers, and the workers at Frigoscandia and like places. The Minister knows that there are grave doubts and worries on the part of members of the Transport and General Workers' Union who work in these places. We cannot shut our eyes to that. They are members of the same union, although in different branches.

Mr. Crawford: I made a similar point in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about members of the Transport and General Workers' Union having grave doubts about the Bill. Members of that union in Perth have extremely grave doubts about it.

Mr. Lewis: I agree. I was speaking about members of the TGWU in my area, and not only the shop stewards. They are men who work for a 100 per cent. trade union firm, a very good firm which gives everything in the way of trade union conditions. I can say nothing but the best about the firm. But the workers themselves had doubts. I told them "You must take it up with your branch, which is different from that of the dockers." They have not obtained satisfaction.
I am not afraid of voting against the Government or abstaining on this or any other question if I wish. I have doubts myself. I agree that the five-mile limit is ludicrous and creates many problems. But I cannot see that the alternative of half a mile is any good either.
Will the five-mile limit be extended, and will bad action be taken against workers in the docks and warehousing industry? Will there be a chance of Mr. X, with 40 years' membership of the TGWU, 40 years as an active trade unionist in a depot, then finding a dock worker shop steward with only 10 or 12 years in the union telling him "Look, brother, you must now leave your branch and come in with the dock scheme even though you may not want to do so"? I want to be sure that such a person is safeguarded.
Will there be a stretching and stretching of the principle of the Bill? Suppose the workers in Fleet Street say that they want to operate a five-mile limit and that all work connected with printing, even that of the girl serving the tea, shall come under the printing union? Where do we draw the line? There could be a similar process throughout the country. Let us take the miners, for example. God bless them. They are entitled to the best that they can get. Nothing is too good for them. But what happens if they say that within five miles of a pit all work connected with it shall be classified as miners' work and all the workers concerned shall be members of the NUM?

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend is being misled by Opposition Members who argued this case on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I am sure that my hon. Friend advances his argument with much sincerity, but it is obvious that he does not understand the true position. It is not the five-mile limit that determines whether certain work is dock work. It must stand up to rigorous examination. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) spoke about the various tests. It is misleading to suggest that the only test for classification as dock work is the five-mile limit.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not understand a word of that intervention. Is there any way in which it could be explained to the House? I do not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who uttered it, understood it himself.

Mr. Speaker: There are many accents in this House. I wish that I had one myself.

Mr. Loyden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady, who comes from Scotland, ought to know that I come from Scotland Road. That is probably why I cannot understand her and she cannot understand me.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps I may put it in the Cockney vernacular and tell the hon. Lady that if she will take a ball of chalk down the frog and toad to have a butcher's hook, everyone will be happier. If she wants that translated I shall do so later.
Let me return to the Bill. The definition and designation of dock work is set out in it. Where there is inter-union rivalry, and even inter-membership rivalry, the strongest tend to get their way over the weakest. The principle of the corridor could spread to other areas, especially if it worked successfully, although I have my doubts about that. Other unions might want to get in on the act. For example, the miners might insist that all work that could by any stretch of the imagination be connected with the pits should within a five-mile area be the work of miners. It could extend to the loading and unloading of coal trains, for example.
I want a guarantee from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that no man or woman who has been doing the job satisfactorily and in a way which complies with the trade union rules and regulations will be removed from that job to make room for a docker. That has happened, as it did in the case of the Chobham Farm depot where constituents of mine were affected. Once such a person had left the job, if the dockers wanted it and could establish an entitlement to it, I would be happy. But I want to safeguard workers who have held jobs, whether for only a year or for 20 years. If I can have that guarantee I shall be happy to support the Government because to me a half mile is the same in this context as two miles or five miles.

Mr. Crawford: I wish to apologise first to the hon. Member from Scotland Road for my accent and to the Secretary of State for having missed the opening minutes of his speech.
I declare the total opposition of my party to the Government on the amendment. The Bill will lead to the centralisation in London of decision making which will affect business in Scotland. That is total and utter anathema to my party.
I must declare a constituency interest. My constituency contained two ancient boroughs—Blairgowrie and Perth—which were swept away by the Conservative Party's local government reorganisation. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) I have in my constituency a Christian Salvesen depot. It is a very successful depot. There is another such depot in Inverness which employs constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). I realise that that is not totally within the confines of the amendment so I shall confine my brief remarks to the port of Perth. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made great play of the small ports in Scotland and I am grateful to him for those remarks. I shall address my brief remarks to the Minister in the form of several questions.
10.15 p.m.
The Minister will be aware that Perth was the ancient capital of Scotland. I speak for myself and not for my party when I say that I should like Perth to be

the seat of the future Parliament of Scotland. I am sure that my hon. Friends have other ideas about that. The Minister will also be aware that Perth is a port and that ships—perhaps not very large vessels—load and unload at Perth. Unfortunately it is a tidal port. It is open for only half the year, approximately, because at times the ships can get in and at other times they cannot.
From that point of view Perth is an important port for the surrounding agricultural industry, including East Perthshire and West Perthshire. T am sorry that my colleague the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is not in the Chamber. The hon. and learned Gentleman takes a close interest in this matter.
The Minister will be aware that Perth is the centre for a large agricultural area. A large part of the hinterland could suffer if Perth, along with other smaller ports in Scotland, comes under this scheme.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire mentioned St. Ives. I have a fairly close knowledge of what happens in East Anglia, including St. Ives and other East Anglian ports.

Sir David Renton: It is not a port.

Mr. Crawford: But there are ports in East Anglia that come roughly within the definition of Perth. I am well aware that the problems of East Anglia are not totally dissimilar from ports in parts of Scotland.

Sir David Renton: St. Ives is not a port in reality, but if the Bill were passed, as the Government are hoping, it would be an imaginary port.

Mr. Crawford: That is the precise point that I was trying to take up.
I ask the Minister two categoric and straightforward questions. First, is the port of Perth exempt from the terms of the Bill? Secondly, in his summing up will the Minister name the ports in Scotland, the small ports, that are exempt under the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) will be unhappy with the reply that he receives, because none of the


ports is exempt from the terms of the Bill.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I only wish that he had made it earlier in the Session and that he had rather more influence with Ministers. Possibly had they listened to him we might not now be faced with such an appalling situation during the last hours of the Session—namely, having to argue about a measure that should never have been going on the statute book.
I have always been under the impression that the Bill was drafted to deal with the situation in London. I think that that was indicated by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. That is why so many Members have so much objection to the Bill. We object because it has been applied to the rest of the United Kingdom. I respect what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I wish that he would think again about how he intends to vote. The difference between half a mile and five miles means a great deal of trouble for many people in areas five miles from London, taking in Dagenham, who are very concerned about what will happen.
The Minister has deal with the Bill extremely fairly. I know that he will be glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that those who are already in unions will not be forced to change over until they leave their job. I think that the hon. Gentleman will get that assurance. However, I plead with him not to take that as a reason for supporting the Government tonight. He would do the country a service if he were to abstain.
The same goes for the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), whose intervention I very much welcome. The hon. Gentleman had great courage to make it. I have not been in the House for very long, but I know that many Members on both sides of the House have gone into the Lobby on occasions with grave doubts about whether they should be there. I have done that on one or two occasions. It is not a cowardly act. The hon. Gentleman spoke from the heart. I hope that he will seriously consider how he should vote tonight.
I support Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Amendment No. 12 deals with

the half-mile to five-mile corridor. I cannot believe that the members of the Bristow Committee appreciated what they were recommending when they talked about a five-mile corridor from the mean level at high tide. They could not have meant to include places such as St. Ives, Newark or even near to York. It is a pity that the Bill has been based on the Bristow Committee's recommendations.
The Secretary of State and his predecessor, now the Leader of the House, said that the Government did not intend to include some of the smaller ports in this measure, but that they would all have to go through the process set out in the Bill—namely, that, within three months of local dock boards being set up, they would have to make their returns and argue whether they wished to be included, and that the local dock boards would make their decisions. Presumably they are to make trips to the different ports.
Why we should go to all this expense when we have an economic crisis on our hands I do not know. Presumably the local dock boards will make exhaustive investigations. People will be forced to plead their cases at a time when they ought to be concentrating on getting on with their business and exporting. They will have to fill in God knows how many forms. Ultimately a recommendation will be made to the Secretary of State, and I assume that many months later—I cannot imagine that the Isle of Wight would be included—a decision will be made.
should go because it will do us no good long. It would have been better had the Government accepted the Lords amendment dealing with the small ports. If they found it defective—we had an assurance from the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that he had legal advice that it was all right and properly drafted—they could put something in which was acceptable to them. I suggest that the small ports ought to be kept out of the Bill. This part is a nonsense.
Great play has been made of the position of the House of Lords in regard to this Bill. I think that of all the measures which we should defeat before the Session ends, this should be one. I believe that this is the worst of the lot and that it should go because it will do us no good


at all. It would have been better to have left matters as they were.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) spoke with great knowledge of the port of Liverpool. But I think that he will accept that custom there has been honoured because things are working very well. I wonder whether he really wants this legislation. Those remarks apply to other ports, such as Southampton.
If the Government win the Division and this question goes back to the Lords, I suggest that their Lordships will be within their rights to put it back. I have no doubt that the country would be on the side of the Lords. [Interruption.] I challenge the Government to put it to a referendum. I know who would win.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has given what we must accept is a Liberal definition of democracy—that when this elected Chamber makes a decision the completely undemocratic anachronistic House of Lords, where there is no democracy, but an inbuilt majority of Tory Peers who always agree with the Cory Party, should be able to reverse it. Is that what he understands to he democracy?

Mr. Ross: I think that on this occasion their Lordships are speaking for the nation. We have heard Labour Members express grave doubts about the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that several of his former colleagues, who are now in the other place, went into the Lobby against the Government on this measure.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I represent a constituency which contains the port of Avonmouth. I have had many talks with the dockers and those working in cold stores and associated jobs close to the ports. I want to expose some of the myths which have been created in the debate today and by Aims of Industry, the Tory Party and employers generally about this legislation. I do not know of any other piece of legislation which has been so distorted by the Tory Press, the employers and Aims of Industry and their allies.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made the point that there has been a rapid rate of technological change in the docks industry. There has been containerisation and roll-on/roll-off traffic. No one would dispute that. But it is also being suggested that this technological change is wholly and solely the reason why there are fewer job opportunities for dockers. That is incorrect, indeed nonsense. The real situation is that over a long period of time the dockers and some responsible employers have built up a dock labour scheme, and that scheme places obligations on employers to give rights and responsibilities to dockers, as well as decent conditions of employment, training and pensions. Most important of all, has injected an element of industrial democracy into the industry. There were certain cold-store firms and multinationals which were not willing to face up to those obligations, so they moved out of the scheme areas and built their cold stores and warehouses elsewhere. They were not prepared to give the same security of employment, rates of pay, and worker involvement as firms in the National Dock Labour Scheme. There are the jobs we are talking about—jobs which were deliberately moved out of dockland areas in order to exploit much lower level of pay, and so on.
The second myth I shall dispel is that we are dealing with a powerful trade union—the Transport and General Workers' Union—which is imposing this piece of legislation on the Government and everyone else. At the same time, we are told that over the last 10 years the number of dockers has been halved. Yet they are supposed to have a powerful trade union representing them. Heaven

help them if they had a weak trade union there would be no dockers left. It is nonsense to create this image of a great, powerful trade union.
The next myth is that thousands of dockers will descend down on jobs all over the country from Perth to Doncaster, to Camborne, to Birmingham and so on. Yet there are only 30,000 dockers now. I assume that Conservatives will admit that a certain number of dockers will be required to unload all the food and the semi-manufactured and manufactured imports even if they are not loading exports. What number of these 30,000 are we talking about? How many will descend en masse on the places I have mentioned and steal jobs from other trade union members?

Mr. Crawford: The only point I was making—I have made it repeatedly—is that the Transport and General Workers' Union in Perth is opposed to the Bill.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas: That point has been answered adequately. I doubt if we could have any piece of legislation which affected a group of workers and have 100 per cent. of them in favour of it. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) that many of the doubts which he spoke of and the vote which went against in Perth was because of the way in which the object of the Bill has been distorted by Aims of Industry, employers, the Tory Press and the Tory Party.
The assumption has been made, and hammered home by Members of the Tory Party and their allies, that if someone has a job within five miles of the corridor there is a docker ready to take his job away from him tomorrow. The BBC put on a "Tonight" programme—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows this—in which a reporter said to a burly lorry driver "When a docker comes and takes your job, what will you do?" The lorry driver replied in no uncertain terms what he would do if that were to happen. The legislation does not provide for dockers to take over people's jobs in that manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston has made the point over and over again,


but it seems that it has to be made once more.
The five-mile limit is the first preliminary step—[Interruption.] That may cause some laughter, but had it been left to me I should have started from the premise that what is classifiable as dock work should be done by dockers. I should not have given a damn whether it was in Birmingham or anywhere else. If it was classifiable as dock work, it would have come into the scheme.
The first question is whether the work is within the five-mile limit. The next question is whether it is covered by a detailed definition of classified dock work as defined in the legislation. Most of the examples that we have been given by Tory Members are not covered. We are talking about a tiny handful of people. There are only 30,000 dockers, and about 25,000 or 27,000 of them or some higher figure will still be required to unload and load cargoes in the normal way. We are talking about a situation in which dockers will be able to move into jobs if vacancies arise. There is no question of kicking anyone out of a job. No one will take a job from anyone, and anyone who says otherwise distorts the purpose of the Bill.
Reference was made to the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that the dockers may take industrial action. I think that my hon. Friend has every right to make that kind of statement. Knowing as he does the frustration suffered by the dockers over the decades, it is legitimate for him to say that if an unelected group of people defy the will of this elected Chamber the dockers may take industrial action. Aircraft workers have said to me that if the Tory Party and the House of Lords hold up the Aircraft Bill any longer they will take industrial action. There is nothing unusual about that. It required the dockers to take action under the Industrial Relations Act to bring the Tories to their senses.
My right hon. Friend was right to mention the Chobham Farm situation. We were told by the media and the Tory Press that a powerful union was taking on a small employer, but then we found that the Vesty Group was one of the biggest multinational companies in the world. That was the real situation, but that was not what the Tories were saying.
The main attack against the Bill arises from the fact that the Dock Labour Scheme, apart from dealing with conditions and providing security of employment, provides a certain amount of industrial democracy for the workers who are covered by it. Industrial democracy frightens the Tories to death, and the employers too. That is what worries them, and that is why they have mounted their attack against the Bill.
I agree that the House should have spent time on these amendments, not because they are important, as the Front Bench of the Tory Party has said, but because in essence they are wrecking amendments. If we accept amendments of this kind and restrict the distance to half-a-mile and leave out all the small ports, we may as well rip up this piece of legislation. The Tories know that, and so does the House of Lords.
The House of Lords is not the watchdog of the constitution. It is the Tory Party's poodle, and it is high time that we put that poodle quietly to sleep.

Mr. Richard Luce: It was interesting that hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) used certain reasons for justifying the introduction of the Bill. They used the reason that the dockers have had an insecure past in the years since the war. That is absolutely true. They used the reason that industrial relations in the docks have been extremely poor. That is also true. They used the reason that there has been a serious rundown in that industry. That is perfectly true. They are perfectly justified in making those statements.
What is totally unbelievable is that hon. Gentlemen opposite should use those as reasons for giving the dockers privileges which are unsurpassed in almost any other walk of life. Were we to follow their argument through, it should also apply to workers in the steel industry and in agriculture. Indeed, some hon. Members with marginal seats are in an insecure situation. Perhaps we should pass a Bill to give them privileges unsurpassed in other walks of life. It is unbelievable that hon. Gentlemen opposite should use this argument as a justification for the Bill.
I would pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and


the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), who both made speeches of enormous courage. To my mind, they are seeking the truth of the situation that faces the country with regard to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West told the House that he has a good reputation for making up his own mind about the direction in which he will vote. He has proved that once this week already. He produced his own reason for the way in which he voted earlier this week. It was for him to judge whether that was important or not. If he felt that the reason then for voting against his own party was important, I would suggest that the reason he should produce now for voting against his own party is even more important. I hope that lie will show courage and do just that.
The only issue on which I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) was when he implied that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West had not shown courage. I think that it does show courage to stand up and say that the party system is so strong today and the pressure put on by the Whips is so strong that he is reluctant to go against them. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman opened his mind to the House about the importance of the clauses that we are debating. I hope that he, too, will have the courage of his convictions and vote for the amendment.
I represent a constituency which contains the important non-scheme port of Shoreham. I want to say why this group of amendments is essential to the future of that port, and why, if they are not passed, it will be serious not only for that port but for the country as a whole. This port has a great reputation. It is efficient and has attracted a great deal of trade, particularly in wine and timber, from the scheme ports over the last decade.
The first reason why Shoreham has flourished despite our economic difficulties is the contribution of the dockers themselves and the management. Equally important, it is a non-scheme port. The Bill will spoil all that. It is an insult to the dockers because it implies that they need unsurpassed manning privileges which they know they do not need.
I have not had one representation from a Shoreham docker that the Bill is essential to his future. I have sought the views of dockers while walking around the port, and many have said that the Bill is an embarrassment to them. The dockers of Shoreham do not want the privileges of guaranteed minimum earnings, guaranteed jobs for life, the redefinition of dock jobs and the extension of the limits, because it hurts their pride.
The Bill will strain dockers' relations in the port with lorry drivers, warehousemen and tally clerks. It will give them a monopoly which, as Labour peers have said, is not a good thing in a democracy, where we need to disperse power as much as possible. Particularly in a port like Shoreham, which has a fine industrial relations record, the Bill is likely to lead to deteriorating industrial relations. It will introduce a third party, the NDLB, into the relationship between the dockers and the management. It will make for more impersonal relationships and will harm industrial relations.

Mr. George Grant: The hon. Member is telling us of his knowledge of Shoreham, but I am not so sure. Does he realise that throughout the country the Bill has the blessing of the TUC?

Mr. Luce: This gets more and more revealing. The hon. Member has confirmed where power lies now in this country. What is uppermost in his mind is that the TUC says that this should be done—and it will be done. That is what is wrong with the country at present.
Shoreham's present competitive charges will rise, because the Bill will ossify manning and encourage overmanning. It will make for the inflexible use of labour. Private employers in the port already provide an excellent service but the levy will impose an extra burden on them and therefore, indirectly, it could have a serious effect on the port.
Lastly, the Bill will stifle competition in a port which has a marvellous reputation. The result will be higher prices, less competition, less investment and worse industrial relations. It will do harm to the people of Shoreham and the country and it is a great insult to the dockers of Shoreham. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant) has no right to claim that he speaks for the dockers of


Shoreham. He has the right to speak for his constituency but no right to express a monopoly of interest in mine.
It is shameful that the people of the country and the House of Lords are on one side and the elected Chamber is on the other. The House's arrogant disregard of the national interest can be rectified if the Government will concede the amendments before us.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) dealt adequately with the reasons for the concern of dock workers about job opportunities. In analysising the reasons for the decline of employment in the dock industry, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that it was not exclusively the result of new technology, but he attributed most of the blame to new technology. He also referred to the Port of London and the tears that were shed by Opposition Members at the tragedy of the London docks.
Having worked in the docks for 29 years, I have some understanding of what has happened in London, Merseyside and the other major ports, and Opposition Members also know the reasons for the decline in the industry. Liverpool is living evidence of how a traditional port can be transformed into a modern port, given the necessary investment, thus enabling work which is traditional to the area to remain there.
The major docks began to decline because the employers, instead of developing traditional ports and modernising them, sucked every ounce of profits out of them, deserted them and built new ports in greener fields, with no traditional dock workers and no National Dock Labour Board. That was the motivation behind the employers of Shoreham, Felixstowe and similar ports. Under Tory Governments, employers left obsolesence in the North-East and North-West and fled to greener pastures, leaving social misery behind them.
That is why dock workers were justified in getting an agreement from employers not to leave the traditional port areas but, if they did, to continue to employ registered dock workers. Those people broke faith with the dock workers, and the dock workers began to look

beyond the dock gates to see what was happening.
The work being done at Chobham Farm had previously been done by registered dock workers in the Port of London. The employers wanted to smash the National Dock Labour Board, and Conservative Members have made clear that that is their intention as well. Let us be honest about the motive behind the opposition to the Bill. It is the smashing of the Board because, for the first time, the Board gives security in the industry. That is the blatantly obvious reason why the Opposition want to see an end to the Bill. That is why they have introduced such distortions of the truth.
Hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee should read some of the things said by the Opposition there. For example, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), dealing with the question of classification of work, said:
Now cargo is packed in aeroplanes. Really, the thought of the dockers executing minor repairs to aeroplanes makes one fear for one's safety. I can imagine the sweating passengers being told that there was half an hour's delay while minor repairs were executed, thinking of the dockers having a go at the altimeter or trying to clear the automatic pilot with their sledge hammers down on the tarmac.
That is the sort of nonsense we had to listen to from hon. Members opposite who were alleged to know something about the docks industry and the Bill. The fact is that this is a modest reform and that they never treated it seriously from the start. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury went on:
What is there to stop the dockers taking over the jobs of air hostesses …?—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25th March 1976; c. 559.]
Even that was said in a serious manner. But he went even further by suggesting that dockers could take over jockeyships at certain racecourses.
The five-mile test is not the only test and not always the most important in this context. Hon. Members opposite have bemoaned the surplus of dock labour in London and on Merseyside. That arose because employers left the traditional ports and developed such places as Felixstowe. They deliberately set out to smash the dockers' organisations which had been built up over the years.
There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure that work not being performed by registered dock workers remains in the hands of those doing it at present, but fears to the contrary have been engendered in the minds of those workers by the Tory Party and the Press which supports it.
Nearly 2,000 dockers in London and between 2,500 and 3,000 in Liverpool left the register, followed, in the last few months, by another 1,500. If that does not convince the Opposition that there is no resistance to the technological changes in the docks, changing the requirements of the labour force, nothing will. The dockers have accepted that technological changes mean a smaller labour force.
The attack on the dockers has been motivated by the fact that the Opposition want to see an end to the National Dock Labour Board and to have virtually no protection for the dockers. But the Government are taking account in the Bill of the changes that have come about. The Government recognise that they cannot continue to accept the principles which obtained 30 years ago, or even in 1967, when there was a revision of the scheme. There has to be recognition that dock workers have lost their warehousing and cold-storage work to the container bases which began to flourish around the areas of the docks. This loss has been conservatively estimated as between 12½ and 15 per cent. of total cargoes handled.
What do people expect the dock workers to do when they lose their work in that way? We are not talking about goods which can be delivered from the place of manufacture without the dockers touching them. We are talking now about the centres which were set up to take the place of the normal receivers of cargoes. We are talking of the filling of containers away from the docks, as opposed to doing that work in the docks. That is one of the reasons why the employment opportunities in the dock industry have been reduced so dramatically.
The conditions prevailing inside the docks were far superior to those of the fly-by-night, cowboy outfits which set themselves up around the docks. At one time containers were being filled in prison yards for as little as 7s. 6d. per week. That was where the industry was going

The dock workers realised, therefore, that unless there was legislation to provide a definition of dock work and to do what is set out in the Bill, there would be no future for their industry and no employment in the future.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) speaks with passion and knows what he is talking about, but it does not follow that the House should necessarily agree with what he has to say. As a spokesman for the dockers, he has performed in the House tonight, as he has performed many times in Committee, the invaluable service of making quite clear to everybody the purposes of the Bill and what its effect will be.
The debate so far has shown that a substantial number of Labour Members are unhappy and uncertain about the consequences and intentions of the Bill. It therefore behoves us on the Conservative side to be careful, in our choice of words and in our use of arguments, not to exaggerate or make the kinds of wild claims to which the hon. Member was resorting at some moments in his speech.
The Bill will not, of course, put in jeopardy every single job within that enormous cargo-handling zone. None the less, moderate men and women in the Labour Party should surely reflect very carefully on the inexorable processes which have brought the Bill before the House at this time. They should reflect very carefully on the mechanism whereby a minority element within one single union has been able to commit the entire Labour movement to a Bill which sets out to protect the interests of that one minority.
Having reflected on that inexorable process, they should then, I suggest, go on to consider very carefully how the Bill and the apparatus it sets up will work in practice. Will not the very pressures which have brought the Bill before the Commons ensure that the Board operates almost exclusively for the benefit of that section of the community which put the Bill before the House?

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: If the hon. Gentleman had been present when my right hon. Friend spoke earlier on this matter, he would have heard him refer to the many amendments which had been


accepted by the trade union concerned and, indeed, by trade unions throughout the country which are involved in cold storage, and so on. In view of that, surely it cannot be said that they take the kind of view that the hon. Gentleman alleges.

11.0 p.m.

Sir A. Meyer: I readily agree that the National Union of Railwaymen was able to exert a countervailing pressure in order to protect the interests of its members, but I dispute the ability of the great mass of trade unionists to look after their interests as the NUR has been able to do.
I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should at all times have to be upholding the general interest against the Government. It is the Government, surely, who are trustees of the general interest. Yet, in this matter, they have constituted themselves the sole arbiters. If the Government will not uphold the general interest, it becomes almost impossibly difficult for moderates within the Labour Party and the unions to do so. Never was this demonstrated more convincingly than in the embarrassment with which Mr. Tom Jackson was obliged to go along with the action of members of his Union of Post Office Workers, which he knew to be illegal, precisely because he knew that if he stood up for the general interest and the law of the land he could not be sure of the Minister's backing. How right he was.
I hope that the Government will consider carefully before they finally insist on the rejection of the Lords amendment, which is designed to ensure that a substantial number of small ports throughout the country remain unaffected by the Bill's provisions. If these small ports were operated in a way that exploited their workers and paid them very low wages for their work or subjected them to poor conditions, that would be a matter for legitimate concern, but I suggest that that would be dealt with by well-established labour relations channels or by invoking the now substantial body of legislation governing working conditions. Certainly it would not be necessary or useful to invoke the cumbersome machinery of the Bill in order to protect the interests of the workers in the small ports.
But it is not to protect the interests of workers in the small ports that they are

to be brought within the Bill, despite the efforts of the other place to keep them out of it. What is more, it is no good the Government saying that the other place is unrepresentative. I think that that argument has been exploded convincingly. [Interruption.] I did not notice Government supporters laughing so loudly when the electors of Walsall, North and Workington demonstrated their attitude in support of the ideas which the House of Lords was unholding and against the self-appointed guardians of the public weal. This Bill is intended to eliminate the small ports because they take work away from the scheme ports, and it has been the consistent aim of the hon. Member for Garston to remind us that this is what the Bill is about.
In terms of my own constituency, the tiny port of Mostyn must be shut down because it takes away the odd ship from the great port of Liverpool. People go to Mostyn in preference to Liverpool not because it is more conveniently situated—because it is not—not because it is better equipped—because it is not—and not because it is necessarily cheaper. The reason is that shippers know that they get their ships dealt with better at Mostyn than they do at Liverpool.
In Committee I argued as fiercely as I could the case for Mostyn being allowed to continue because of the vital importance of it and other small ports along the coast. They are vital to the hinterland which they serve. In standing up for them we are not only standing up for the jobs of those who work in them—although workers may fondly imagine that if their jobs are taken away they will take other jobs from other workers—but are arguing for the many hundreds of other jobs which depend on our small ports. They represent a key element in our economy. Since the Committee stage, the employment prospects in my constituency have gravely deteriorated and the importance of preserving these jobs is greater than ever.
As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said, nobody seriously believes that the Bill will create a single extra job. The best that can be claimed is that it will encourage a game of General Post in which A takes B's job and B takes C's job. It will be a case of hunt the slipper and lose it.
The amendment seeks to limit the damage which the Bill can do. The distance of half a mile is not one which I would have chosen. It is far more important to define the cargo-handling zone in terms of existing ports than to try to reduce the distance. The most nonsensical part of the Bill is that nearly the whole of the United Kingdom is included in the cargo-handling zone.

Mr. Spearing: Did the hon. Member say that almost all the United Kingdom will be included in the cargo-handling zone? If he did, he should reconsider.

Sir A. Meyer: I cannot wave a map in the Chamber as hon. Members did in Committee but, bearing in mind the vast tracts of the country which are to be included in the cargo-handling zone and the extra powers of the Minister under the Bill, I am right to say that the whole of the Kingdom could be classed as a cargo-handling zone.
The pressure of a minority of the minority has been able to force the Labour Party into supporting that concept. The whole country will be covered by the cargo-handling zone. I hope that the Government will at least give an assurance that they will provide a proper definition of the cargo-handling zone.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I refer to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, which concern the new definable dock areas. In the Lords' suggestion lies a ray of hope for the way in which the Bill will operate. Hours were spent in Committee trying to explain that the Government intended to extend and classify as dock work areas of industry such as distribution and warehousing which are not traditionally dock work. That is of great concern to the nation.
It will not do to say merely that, because of the dreadful and hazardous history of dock work in traditional docks, it is now necessary to start to re-classify chunks of the industrial sector of the economy outside as susceptible to being classified as dock work. I do not exaggerate and say that every job in every cold store and every warehouse will be so classified, but it has been pointed out that the Government are involved in establishing an elaborate means test to ensure that those depots will be so

classified if the Secretary of State directs. This system is being established to support the continuation of the register and of the 30,000 members thereon for whom the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is so eloquent and persistent a spokesman.
It is now likely that areas of British industry, and, in particular, distribution, will be classified as dock work. When the miners were faced with the inevitable closure of numerous pits, there was not on behalf of that industry the same view expressed by the National Union of Mineworkers—that jobs in areas around the pits or near the pits should be re-classified as miners' work.
This is a peculiarity attached to this legislation. It is a preservation order, so to speak. It is an expression of the belief that the dinosaur image which the docks have traditionally had but which they no longer deserve should be preserved and carried through into other aspects of distribution. This is selling the dockers short in relation to the reputation that they enjoy.
We on this side do not say that there should be no future for the registered and well-organised dock worker. We as an importing and an exporting country recognise the essential rôle that dockers play in the national economy, but we are bound to ask the Government: why is it necessary to preserve this register in this way, so that other sectors of the industrial process which have no traditional link with dock work will be classified as such? Why cannot dockers, if they seek employment in other sectors of industrial life, join the appropriate union and company and take the appropriate job? Why must they come in and bring with them the peculiarities that pertain to dock work when they say, reasonably, as the work is reducing at the ports "We seek alternative employment and a more secure future"? Surely the correct view has always been, and must remain, that if we are to be viable and efficient in running our economy we must pay due regard to the fact that working conditions and practices must change. Nowhere is this more obvious than when transferring dock work to distribution depots and parts of cold-storage depots.
I ask the Secretary of State to direct his attention to two statements. The first


is a statement made on Second Reading by his predecessor as Secretary of State for employment:
As a result of…discussions we have agreed…that long-established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold storage operations, which are not related directly to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, would most certainly not he classified as dock work".—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 267.]
I contrast that statement with that made by Lord Jacques, the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place:
The Government's view is, however, that cold storage work away from the immediate dock area and not now integrated with the loading and unloading of ships needs to be classifiable."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th November 1976; Vol. 376, c. 1608.]
Those two statements are in direct contradiction. Why has the guarantee given by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) when he was Secretary of State for Employment been set aside by the noble Lord leading for the Government in another place? What are the changes which have come about which have led to this guarantee being thrown away? The Secretary of State will remember that I referred to the cold-storage industry at some length in Committee as vital not only to our national survival in terms of food supply but to the development of many aspects of distribution and storage It is not in large measure associated with traditional dock work. It is not associated with the refrigerated cargo industry, which was so often a part of natural dock employment. It developed as a separate attribute of food manufacture and distribution, located in many inland areas which now come within the proposed cargo-handling zone. I ask for a clear explanation from the Secretary of State. Why should he believe that the guarantee offered by his predecessor should no longer be offered at the House of Lords Report stage?
11.15 p.m.
In this series of amendments we have the core of the case. Another place has suggested a new way of defining the cargo-handling zone. To relate it specifically to historical dock work is a much more satisfactory way of describing what the docker really seeks. He has every right to be proud of his craft. He seeks something where that craft can have a secure future. The "definable dock"

is much to be preferred to the cargo-handling concept. It would almost certainly remove many of the areas of real disagreement felt by the warehousing and distribution sectors of the economy over the proposals in the Bill to make sure that the dockers, who have supported the country very well for many years, working under difficult circumstances, should have a secure future.
What this House cannot accept is that the preservation of 30,000 jobs in exactly the same way as they have always been carried on is more important than the development of new industry, with new methods and new technology to contribute to our economic growth. To do anything which sacrificed the prospect of economic growth would be a damning indictment of the Government.

Mr. David Price: I do not see why the Secretary of State cannot accept subsection (2D) of Lords Amendment No. 13, the definition of "small harbour". The right hon. Gentleman told us a number of times in Committee that in practice the small harbours would be excluded. The definitions used in Committee produced rather larger harbours than those produced by the definition in the amendment. I do not believe that in terms of the protection of employment, for which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Leyden) has been arguing throughout the consideration of the Bill, it would give anything away to concede this definition. It would be an enormous relief to people in the remote fringe areas of the country, particularly in the islands and Cornwall. I do not believe that they will be brought in. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's implicit undertaking in Committee that they will not. Therefore, lie would give nothing away by accepting the amendment.
We argued the five-mile zone as against the half-mile zone in Committee. I personally have been consistently against a geographical definition. I preferred to rest on the broader definitions in Clauses 6 to 12. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I found common cause in this, and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) seemed to have the same idea. The moment one starts defining geographical limits one finds the non-senses that have come up throughout the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I do not think that we agreed on the question of the five-mile zone. What I think we agreed on was that the difficulty about the Bill was that if it was to work properly it was impossible to provide definitions which, legally applied, would not produce nonsenses. To that extent the hon. Gentleman and I were in accord in Committee.

Mr. Price: That matter raises wider issues. As I said in the debate on an earlier amendment, if we had had a Select Committee to consider the question when the Bill was in the form of a White Paper the hon. Gentleman and I and many other hon. Members would have been much closer together. The scheme was presented to us as a fait accompli. One of the distressing aspects is the extent to which the Government have not been prepared to modify it during its passage through both Houses.
The concept of the five-mile zone was produced in the report of the Bristow Committee, which was specifically charged to deal with the problems of the Port of London, and no other port.
The other important point about the Bristow report was that it dealt with employers and unions involved in the industry. It did not deal with any of the other activities which might be brought within the Bill. It was made clear in that report that evidence was not taken from any of the other interests. When the Minister in the other place persisted in treating the Bristow report as a sort of Bible, therefore, he was wrong.
The report said
We reached the unanimous conclusion early in our deliberations that, while we must obviously take into account if we were to make any useful and realistic recommendation that many interests not represented on the Committee would be affected and ought to have their views considered, for us as a Committee to attempt to hear them and evaluate their objections to the proposals we mean to recommend would make it impossible for us to put forward any agreed recommendations whatever within the foreseeable future.
The members of the committee realised that they could not make such a recommendation; so, rather than look at the subject intelligently and sensibly, they preferred not to look at it at all. Therefore, to use the report as a justification for the five-mile zone is to rest the dockers' corridor upon a faulty base.
Let me remind Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Garston, that since the Bill was given a Third Reading the report of the Joint Port Trade Development Committee has been issued. It contains extremely important recommendations. The committee recommended that the Government should resume responsibility for some of the costs of the surplus manpower within the port. The committee came to the conclusion that the PLA and the employers were in danger of pricing themselves out of the market because of the burden of carrying this surplus labour. Labour Members should bear that in mind.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I wish to deal with the question of the small ports. How infinitely depressing it is for us all to have sat through the many long hours in the Committee and to have read what the other place said about the Bill only to find that the Government have not moved an inch in their attitude to the small ports.
They still display the stupid obstinacy with which they started the Bill off. Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), admitted that the Bill was produced not in response to the will of the nation but because it is the will of the TUC. That demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the Bill and the country.
There are more than 120 small ports in Scotland. I can give three examples to show how ludicrous it is to apply the principles of the Bill to them. In Committee the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said that we should all realise that what was good for London was not necessarily good for anyone else in the United Kingdom. He was right. It is clear that the Bill, which was largely based on the needs of London, is grotesquely absurd in its application to the small ports of Scotland.
Take the case of Montrose. The port estimates that the Bill will add between £75,000 and £80,000 a year to its costs. It will be priced out of business. The 60 dockers in Montrose do not agree with Labour Members who say that the dockers in the small ports agree with the Bill. The men from Montrose came to the House and made clear their total opposition. Those men will lose their jobs and the port will be closed.
Let us consider the port of Perth—

Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Montrose, will he give us some idea of how the extra expenditure is to be allocated?

Mr. Sproat: Of the 63 dockers who work at Montrose, 30 are regular and 33 are part-time. Under the scheme they would all have to be regular and, therefore, the wages bill would increase. That is the simple reason. Why should the men who wish to work part-time be forbidden from that employment by the Government?

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Spearing rose—

Mr. Sproat: No, I must get on.
Another example is the small port of Stornoway. All the goods that come into the Western Isles have to come by sea. We know that the Bill will increase costs. It will increase the cost of living for everyone on the islands. Why should their cost of living be increased to accommodate the ideological obstinacies of the Government? I ask the Government to give a categorical assurance that the small ports of Scotland, which have nothing to do with the principles upon which the Government appear to base the Bill, will not be included in the Government's plans.

Mr. Booth: I have listened with great care to ascertain whether a case would be deployed in support of the Lords amendments. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that this group of amendments took us to the crux of the Bill. If I may paraphrase him, he said that it took us to the very centre point and that the corridor concept is all wrong. I do not think it matters very much whether we talk about a definable dock area or a cargo-handling zone, because the issue at stake is quite clear, although only one Opposition Member touched upon it while completely rejecting the idea of having any geographical test.
Whether it is called a corridor, a cargo-handling zone or a definable dock area, the issue is the same. All that is before us in the amendments is whether we choose one sort of corridor or another. That is the issue before us on any of the tests put before the House.
I contend that the cargo-handling zone in the Bill has a great deal in its favour. A great deal can be said for it that cannot be put forward for the amendment. Let us use some of the tests put to us by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that whatever else the legislation must be if it is to win the support of the House, it must be clear. However, he was not clear about the effect of the amendment. He was not clear about the area that would be covered, along with a great many Opposition Members. They do not seem to realise that it would drive corridors across the map of Great Britain one mile wide based upon the centres of rivers and navigable canals and waterways that are so defined for the purposes of another Act.
The objections that have been raised have been applied only to the Bill and not to the amendments. Hon. Members may take the view that one type of area corridor or width that is based upon one type of waterway as opposed to a high-tide mark is better than another. I should have been happy to listen to arguments advanced to support the superiority of one area of survey as opposed to another, but that has not been done. It has been said that the proposition contained in the Bill is a ludicrous limitation to put on an area of survey and that another one put forward by another place is totally acceptable. Even if one could leave that aside—does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Sir John Rodgers: Yes. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to accept it?

Mr. Booth: No, I certainly do not.

11.30 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the House of Lords' propositions was acceptable. Now he says that it is not.

Mr. Booth: I did not say that the House of Lords' proposition was acceptable. The hon. Gentleman did not hear me aright. I said that one part of the House of Lords' proposition, in so far as one could apply the criticism of a corridor approach to it, was just as much


a corridor approach as the Government's approach.
But there is another objection to the House of Lords' proposition which cannot be applied to the Government's relating to the small ports. It seems surprising that hon. Gentlemen have not taken the trouble to read it, having expressed concern about the small ports. As a criticism of the Bill, they have said that the Government are taking power to extend the cargo-handling zone. Has any Opposition Member made a single reference to the fact that if we agree with these Lords amendments the Government will have power to lay an order to change the effective definition of the small ports?
The proposed subsection (2D)(a) defines a small port by the number of hours worked. Lords Amendment No. 14 would enable the Secretary of State by order to change the number of hours.
Subsection (2D)(b) defines a small port—this is one of the alternatives—by the gross registered tonnage of the vessels which can go in and be accommodated at mean high water. Lords Amendment No. 14 would give the Secretary of State power to change that tonnage.
In answer to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), I say that, while I cannot run round the coast of Scotland tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have not only physical limitations but obligations to this House. I am sure that the prospect would be more pleasing if I were attempting to do that than looking in this direction at the moment.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire asked me to name ports which would be exempt. In all fairness, I cannot do that on the Lords' proposition, for the reasons which I have already given—namely, that it allows for the limits of the small ports to be changed—any more than I can on the proposition in the Bill.

Mr. Prior: That is a weak argument.

Mr. Crawford: Mr. Crawford rose—

Mr. Booth: I will give way in a moment. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), from a seated position, said that it was a weak argu-

ment to say that the Lords' proposition allows the definition of small ports to be changed.

Mr. Crawford: Mr. Crawford rose—

Mr. Booth: The House must surely accept that if one of the objections to the definition of the cargo-handling zone is that it can subsequently be changed by order, it is equally an objection to the Lords' proposition for defining small ports if it can subsequently be changed by order.

Mr. Crawford: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the Secretary of State, who is de jure the author of the Bill, cannot name the small ports in Scotland which are exempt from the scheme, which is a very sad state of affairs, how can we in Scotland decide whether he knows anything about the Bill?

Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman must study the terms of the Bill. He will see that the tests which determine whether a port will be covered by the Bill are set out there, and the procedure is set out as well.
I cannot name the ports as of now because the Bill is not designed to deal only with the immediate situation. It is meant to serve us in the future as well. As a port may change in the future, so it may, by the definition of the Bill, be subjected to survey, and possibly brought within the scope of the scheme.
It is not possible to say, on the basis of either the Lords amendment or the Bill, that any one small port will, for all time, be inside or outside the scheme. This is understood by all those who have studied the Bill from the outset.

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned "for all time". It would help us to know the number of small ports excluded from the Bill, given the Lords amendments as they are now, and not given the additional safeguard that a small port can be expanded at a future date. How many small ports are excluded from the Bill as it is drawn up in subsections (2A), (2B), (2C) and (2D).

Mr. Booth: It is not possible to answer. [Interruption.] We are not being asked tonight only to reject or accept Lords Amendment No. 13. The proposition to


which I must address myself is that Lords Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 should be passed together. If we were to do that, the definition of a small port could and would be changed by order.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Of course it can be changed by order, but the order has not been passed, and until such an order is passed the definition in the Lords amendments is perfectly clear. The Secretary of State should be able to say what the position would be.

Mr. Booth: If that is the basis on which the hon. Gentleman is making his assertion, I could, by exactly the same test, say that the Bill is perfectly clear also.

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By my calculations there are six Ministers and suchlike on the Government Front Bench, and eight officials and suchlike in the Official Box. Why cannot these gentlemen give the Secretary of State the bit of simple help he needs to answer us?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman know too well that he is exploiting the phrase "on a point of order".

Mr. Wells: Mr. Wells rose—

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman not hear what I said? I shall repeat it. He has been here long enough to know that he is exploiting the phrase "On a point of order".

Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Booth: If I may respond to the last point made by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who asked me to consider the hypothetical proposition that we have Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 before us, and that the Bill does not contain any provisions for changing the cargo-handling zone, my answer is that in that case the Bill is infinitely clearer than the Lords Amendment. In the Lords amendment the area which we are forced to consider for the purposes of the survey test can be changed, and it is so unclear that it has been misunderstood by all the hon. Members opposite who have spoken.

Mr. Donald Stewart: There are 23 dockers in Stornoway, and they are all members of the Transport

and General Workers' Union. They tell me that if the Bill goes through their employment will come to an end. We have the highest transport costs in the United Kingdom, and the highest cost of living. Is Stornoway to be exempted, or is the employment of those men to come to an end?

Mr. Booth: The basis of the Bill is such that there is no automatic geographical location that is exempt or included within the Bill. That has been the case from the outset.
I now turn my attention to the question of costs.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a short adjournment while the Minister gets some information?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the House is getting a bit too excited.

Mr. Booth: Perhaps it will help hon. Members who have not taken the trouble to study the previous debates on the Bill if I remind them that we have considered at some considerable length the merits or demerits of reconstructing the Bill in a way that would lay down for the life of an Act of Parliament which precise geographical areas, ports, and so on, are to be covered by the scheme and which are not, and that we as a House have rejected that proposition in favour of what we consider to be a more flexible and appropriate instrument to use when dealing with an industry that is changing rapidly because of the introduction of new technologies.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows the Bill inside out. Can he confirm my understanding that any small port that finds itself excluded may, none the less, later be included without the need for fresh legislation, or, conversely, that any port now included may find itself subsequently excluded without the need for fresh legislation? Is that the case?

Mr. Booth: That is certainly the case. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might find that highly amusing, but those who even begin to understand the changes that take place in dock work and in the cargo-handling industry will see that it


makes a great deal more sense to recognise that these changes may make it appropriate or inappropriate for the scheme to apply in an area, and they might also understand why we have constructed the Bill in this way.
A question was asked about the costs of operating the scheme. It has again been alleged that the cost of the scheme is one of the principal objections to it. This issue was raised for the first time, if I recall correctly, by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft on Second Reading, when he said:
We all know that costs will rise enormously. The British Importers Confederation says that the figure will be as high as £150 million."—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 280.]
That figure has been widely quoted. I have examined the basis for the figure, and, in view of the repetition of the argument that a major objection to the scheme is that it will bring about additional costs, the House may like to know that the figure is totally fallacious.
It was fallacious because statistically what was used to achieve that figure was totally inaccurate. What the British Importers Confederation did was to include in the low-cost non-scheme ports a number of small scheme ports. The confederation therefore got its figures completely wrong. Among the ports included as low-cost non-scheme ports were Ipswich, Sheerness and Rochester—all scheme ports. That made the figure completely wrong.
If one divided the figure of £150 million by the number employed in the ports which are proper non-scheme ports one would be adding £100,000 a year to the wages of the workers concerned or, alternatively, increasing the labour force in those ports twenty-fold. Any hon. Gentleman who makes these assertions about the enormous cost of the scheme should check his figures more carefully and certainly not listen to some of the misleading propaganda which has been advanced in opposition to the Bill.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the Minister. He has mentioned Sheerness and Rochester. He must be aware that the Medway and the Severn are the only two tidal rivers, besides the Thames, which

are specifically mentioned in Magna Carta. He must also be aware that Sheerness and Rochester are both located on the Medway. He will, therefore, be aware that the Medway, as a tidal river, reaches Maidstone. Is he aware that one of the most important elements in my constituency is the import of paper wood pulp? Wood pulp comes to Maidstone and Aylesford through Sheerness and Rochester in barges loaded off the side. Is the Minister really saying that with the inclusion of Sheerness and Rochester we are to suffer dock workers in the paper mills of Mid-Kent?

Mr. Booth: Most hon. Members attach their attention to legislation which is slightly more recent than Magna Carta when making comparisons with the purpose of the dock work scheme.
I do not necessarily accuse the hon. Gentleman of that particular sense of perspective, but on the basis of the tidal waters datum for determining the cargo-handling zone, of course it is the case that the factors which the hon. Gentleman mentioned are only appropriate in the survey in so far as all other tests apply. Therefore, I do not think anyone is likely to suggest, from a serious reading of the Bill, that the work of paper workers in paper mills can by any stretch of the imagination be turned into dock work by the provisions in the Bill.

Sir John Hall: The Secretary of State has poured scorn on the estimate of £150 million as the additional cost, but has not told the House what the figure is in his estimation. Has he himself made an estimate of the additional cost?

Mr. Booth: I examined at length in Committee the relative positions of scheme and non-scheme ports. I cannot call the figures to mind at this stage. Perhaps if the hon. Member had come into the Chamber earlier and displayed some interest in the debate, we might have had the figures available by now, but since he did not I have not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) raised a point which was also raised by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, but in a rather different way. The latter addressed the House as he has done several times before. He said that the Bill gave


dockers a legal right to claim other men's jobs. That is part of the malicious propaganda campaign waged against the Bill by its opponents—the suggestion that an extension of the scheme will lead to existing employees losing their jobs and being replaced by registered dock workers.
There may have been some scope for misunderstanding long before we began to enact this measure. But before we did so, my predecessor answered a parliamentary Question so as to make it perfectly clear that that was not the case. The issue was raised again on Second Reading, when my predecessor again made it clear that if there was any doubt about whether or not jobs would be put in jeopardy, we would table in Committee any amendments necessary to safeguard the position. That we have done.
Let the House consider how seriously we can now take the hon. Member for St. Marylebone when he says that the Bill will give dockers a legal right to take other men's jobs. In Committee, he and his Front Bench colleagues made similar suggestions, saying that the people who needed protection were not dockers but others whose jobs were in jeopardy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I take it that that is endorsed. At least there is no disagreement on that. But not one of the 230 Lords amendments has been concerned with giving additional protection to other workers. So anyone who says that they were concerned about protection for other workers is not borne out in his claim that the House of Lords is representing the country and serving the interests of those workers.
I repeat again tonight what I have said many times before, for the benefit of those whose view of the Bill might still be influenced by the skilful and misleading propaganda put out by groups like Aims of Freedom and Enterprise. Any workers employed in jobs which might be brought within the scheme will remain in their jobs and will retain all existing statutory rights, including protection against unfair dismissal, or will have those rights further improved by becoming fully-registered dock workers.
That is the position: we have sought throughout these debates to ensure protection. The amendments before us do not contain any proposition that would improve the Bill, and I therefore hope that the House will reject them.

Mr. Brittan: During our three-and-a-half hour debate there have been several extremely cogent and powerful speeches from my hon. Friends in support of the amendments. Without disrespect to my hon. Friends, by far the most powerful speech—

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that when an hon. Member is addressing the House he should do so without turning his back on you?

Mr. Brittan: That just confirms my view that, although my hon. Friends made several powerful speeches in support of the amendments, by far the most powerful speech in favour of them came from the Secretary of State. He did not substantiate anything he said. He told us that on Second Reading his right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State estimated the cost of the scheme at £150 million. Now, after the debates in Committee and on Report, for the first time he tells us that the basis of calculation of that figure is wrong. We cannot challenge it here and now, but we can have our doubts and express them when the right hon. Gentleman is unable to put forward an alternative figure. How can we have any confidence in him? How can we avoid asking whether that calculation made by his Government and his Department is any more accurate than is the Treasury calculation of the public borrowing requirement for next year?
We have had a long debate, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concern about small ports and the corridor. There has been no filibustering—and here I speak as much for Government supporters as for my hon. Friends. The fact that we have debated one group of amendments seriously for three-and-a-half hours illustrates that there was no possible justification for imposing a timetable motion.
Criticisms of the House of Lords have been made by Government supporters. It is clear from the debates and the seriousness of the issues raised that the House of Lords, far from defying the constitution, has implemented it and done its job in passing the amendments.
Everything that has been said confirms the Opposition's view that the extension of the dock labour scheme to small ports would disastrously threaten their survival


and confer no compensating benefits. As for the cargo-handling zone, its width is irrational, its extent is excessive and its effect would give a small section of a powerful union a wholly unjustifiable stranglehold on the nation's food supplies.
The Minister said that acceptance of the amendments would replace one type of corridor for another, and he complained that the amendments were not clear. He omitted to take into account that we do not support the idea of a corridor at all, nor do we support the Bill. What we do support is the attempt made by their Lordships to reduce the ill effects of the Bill. Given material of this kind, as harmful as it is, of course the results even of these amendments are bound to continue to be harmful, but not one-tenth as harmful as the original proposals.
12 midnight.
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see a difference in effect between a zone which goes for five miles all round the country and a zone which only goes for half a mile extending from the ports, and only from the ports, he is incapable of understanding his own Bill. There is an enormous difference.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the five-mile zone is really only one of the tests, that many others have to be applied and that the small ports might escape But he will not be pinned down on that statement. It is merely an impression he seeks to give that the small ports will escape. When he wrote to Captain Joyner, Chairman of the Small Ports Consultative Committee, he was more candid. He said:
It would be misleading if I did not make it clear that the Government remains firmly of the opinion, expressed in paragraph 23 of the Consultative Document "Dock Works" that the Scheme should apply wherever significant third party loading and unloading opera. Lions are carried out. I recognise that the extension of the Scheme would cause problems for some non-Scheme ports, but on an overall view we believe that it could give rise to difficulties both now and in the future if the Scheme were not extended to virtually all third party loading and unloading.
That is the measure of the lack of protection that the Bill gives.
Now the right hon. Gentleman tries to have it both ways. He says on the one hand that the small ports have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, he is incapable of giving the smallest justification to those representing the small ports for taking a crumb of comfort to their constituencies. That is the reality of the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) issued an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the point raised in the guillotine debate by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who said:
If the House of Lords persists in its attitude of making the decisions of the House of Commons abortive, it may compel people in the docks industry outside to take action against the decisions of the other place…—[Official Report, 8th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 72.]
What is that but a threat of industrial action if the constitution of the country is carried out? My hon. Friend invited the right hon. Gentleman to denounce that statement and make clear that he opposes such threats. The right hon. Gentleman did not spare the House all sorts of detail, but he spared it the barest of answers to that simplest of questions. He has not denounced that threat.
The Lords amendments do not achieve everything that we wish to see. The only way of doing that would be by not having the Bill at all. But they do provide a measure of protection to the small ports and against a threat which exists, the extent of which we do not know but which exists deliberately because of the way the right hon. Gentleman has framed his Bill.
The most pernicious part of it all in many ways is the provision in Clause 4(6) that
The Secretary of State may by order extend…the cargo-handling zone, either by substituting for the distance specified…a greater distance, or by directing that some specified additional area of Great Britain be treated as part of the zone.
What that means is that the whole of the country is under threat. The House of Lords has not removed that threat. It has reduced it. We should support it in its work.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 310.

Division No. 390.]
AYES
[12.05 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Edge, Geoff
Leadbitter, Ted


Allaun, Frank
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lee, John


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Archer, Peter
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Ashley, Jack
Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Litterick, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bates, Alf
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bean, R. E.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Boardman, H.
Forrester, John
MacKenzie, Gregor


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maclennan, Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, Kevin


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Madden, Max


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Magee, Bryan


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
George, Bruce
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mahon, Simon


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard
Gould, Bryan
Marquand, David


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Ian
Grant, John (Islington C)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Carter, Ray
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hatton, Frank
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Molloy, William


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Moonman, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Concannon, J. D.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Cronin, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Janner, Greville
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Padley, Walter


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Johnson, Waller (Derby S)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Perry, Ernest


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Judd, Frank
Prescott, John


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Radice, Giles


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Richardson, Miss Joe


Dunn, James A.
Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lamond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Robinson, Geoffrey






Roderick, Caerwyn
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stallard, A. W.
Watkinson, John


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Weetch, Ken


Rooker, J. W.
Stoddart, David
Weitzman, David


Roper, John
Stott, Roger
Wellbeloved, James


Rose, Paul B.
Strang, Gavin
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
White, James (Pollok)


Rowlands, Ted
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Ryman, John
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Sandelson, Neville
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Selby, Harry
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tierney, Sydney
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tomlinson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomney, Frank
Woodall, Alec


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Urwin, T. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Skinner, Dennis
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)



Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Snape, Peter
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Spearing, Nigel
Ward, Michael
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Drayson, Burnaby
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Henderson, Douglas


Alison, Michael
Dunlop, John
Heseltine, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony
Hicks, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Dykes, Hugh
Higgins, Terence L.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hodgson, Robin


Awdry, Daniel
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holland, Philip


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Elliott, Sir William
Hooson, Emlyn


Baker, Kenneth
Emery, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Banks, Robert
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Benyon, W.
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fell, Anthony
Hurd, Douglas


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Body, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
James, David


Bottomley, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jessel, Toby


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Brittan, Leon
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Jopling Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Freud, Clement
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Brotherton, Michael
Fry, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kershaw, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kilfedder, James


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Kimball, Marcus


Budgen, Nick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bulmer, Esmond
Glyn, Dr Alan
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Burden, F. A.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Kirk, Sir Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodhart, Philip
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhew, Victor
Knight, Mrs Jill


Carson, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Knox, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gorst, John
Lamont, Norman


Channon, Paul
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lane, David


Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gray, Hamish
Lawrence, Ivan


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Percy
Lawson, Nigel


Clegg, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon
Le Merchant, Spencer


Cockcroft, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Grist, Ian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cope, John
Grylls, Michael
Lloyd, Ian


Cordle, John H.
Hall, Sir John
Loveridge, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Luce, Richard


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hampson, Dr Keith
MacCormick, Iain


Crawford, Douglas
Hannam, John
McCrindle, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
McCusker, H.


Crouch, David
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Macfarlane, Neil


Crowder, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
MacGregor, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Havers, Sir Michael
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hawkins, Paul
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Barney
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)







Madel, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Marten, Neil
Prior, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Mates, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mather, Carol
Raison, Timothy
Stokes, John


Maude, Angus
Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)


Mayhew, Patrick
Reid, George
Tebbit, Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mills, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thompson, George


Moate, Roger
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Molyneaux, James
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D.


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morgan, Geraint
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Viggers, Peter


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wakeham, John


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sainsbury, Tim
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Mudd, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Neave, Airey
Scott, Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Nelson, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walters, Dennis


Neubert, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Newton, Tony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Watt, Hamish


Normanton, Tom
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Nott, John
Shepherd, Colin
Wells, John


Onslow, Cranley
Shersby, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Osborn, John
Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, John (Harrow West)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wigley, Dafydd


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Page, Richard (Workington)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Winterton, Nicholas


Paisley, Rev Ian
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Pardoe, John
Speed, Keith
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Parkinson, Cecil
Spence, John
Younger, Hon George


Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)



Penhaligon, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Percival, Ian
Sproat, Iain
Mr. John Currie and


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Pink, R. Bonner
Stanley, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 4, line 12, at end, insert—
(2A) A definable dock area shall comprise any place in Great Britain which is within half a mile (in a direct line) of a harbour to which this Act applies or of the nearest harbour land adjacent to such a harbour.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, "harbour" and "harbour land" have the meanings

assigned to them by section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Booth.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 311.

Division No. 391.]
AYES
[12.21 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Peter
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cowans, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Ashley, Jack
Buchanan, Richard
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Crawshaw, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cronin, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ian
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Canavan, Dennis
Cryer, Bob


Bates, Alf
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bean, R. E.
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carter, Ray
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Boardman, H.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cohen, Stanley
Deakins, Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Coleman, Donald
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund






Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Radice, Giles


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Joe


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dunn, James A.
Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn


Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Edge, Geoff
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lee, John
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus
Ryman, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Litterick, Tom
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, John (Newton)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Loyden, Eddie
Selby, Harry


Faulds, Andrew
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Filch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Skinner, Dennis


Forrester, John
MacKenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snape, Peter


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Madden, Max
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Magee, Bryan
Stallard, A. W.


George, Bruce
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mahon, Simon
Stott, Roger


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Gould, Bryan
Marquand, David
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Swain, Thomas


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mendelson, John
Tierney, Sydney


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tomlinson, John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tomney, Frank


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Torney, Tom


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Urwin, T. W.


Hatton, Frank
Molloy, William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ward, Michael


Horam, John
Moyle, Roland
Watkins, David


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkinson, John


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weetch, Ken


Huckfield, Les
Newens, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Noble, Mike
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Gordon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollock)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Woof, Robert


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Perry, Ernest
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Prescott, John



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Joseph Ashton and


Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. David Stoddart




NOES


Adley, Robert
Alison, Michael
Arnold, Tom


Aitken, Jonathan
Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)







Awdry, Daniel
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marten, Neil


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mates, Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus


Banks, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Berth, A. J.
Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mayhew, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, James


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hall, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint


Brittan, Leon
Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Brotherton, Michael
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Carson, John
Hodgson, Robin
Oppenheim, Mrs Salty


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John


Channon, Paul
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow West)


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pardoe, John


Clegg, Walter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Penhaligon, David


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian


Cordle, John H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Corrie, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crawford, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Reid, George


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dunlop, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Elliott, Sir William
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lane, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Farr, John
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Tim


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Forman, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacCormick, Iain
Shepherd, Colin


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCusker, H.
Sims, Roger


Freud, Clement
Macfarlane, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chatham)
Madel, David
Spence, John


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)







Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Watt, Hamish


Sproat, Iain
Thompson, George
Weatherill, Bernard


Stanbrook, Ivor
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wells, John


Stanley, John
Townsend, Cyril D.
Welsh, Andrew


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Trotter, Neville
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wigley, Dafydd


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stokes, John
Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Tapsell, Peter
Wakeham, John
Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hon George


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)



Tebbit, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Fred Silvester and


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Carol Mather


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a situation in which we have the Government defeated twice on a major piece of legislation—

Mr. Thomas Swain: Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East) rose—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Do you recollect, Mr. Speaker, with your wide knowledge of precedents, whether it is in accordance with the precedents of the House that the Prime Minister should not be on the Treasury Bench on such an occasion?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 4, line 12, at end insert—
(2C) A definable dock area shall not include any small harbour or any place within half a mile (in a direct line) of a small harbour, being a place which is not also within a similar distance of a harbour to which this Act applies.

(2D) In subsection (2C) above "small harbour" means a harbour or wharf—
(a) at which the hours worked in the twelve months ended 3rd December 1975 by a person in loading cargo into, or unloading cargo from, ships did not exceed (on being averaged with the hours so worked by other pesons so engaged during that period) 1,350; or
(b) which cannot, at mean high water, accommodate ships of a gross registered tonnage more than 1,000 tons; or
(c) where the labour foce is employed substantially on a permanent basis and where the terms and conditions of service are no less favourable than the national terms laid down for ports affiliated to the National Joint Council; and for the purposes of this subsection "cargo" and "ship" mean the same as in Schedule 3 to this Act."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Booth]:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 310.

Division No. 392.]
AYES
[12.37 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Peter
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Armstrong, Ernest
Carmichael, Neil
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ashley, Jack
Carter, Ray
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dempsey, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cartwright, John
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dormand, J. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clemitson, Ivor
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cohen, Stanley
Dunn, James A.


Bates, Alf
Coleman, Donald
Dunnett, Jack


Bean, R. E.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Conlan, Bernard
Edge, Geoff


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bishop, E. S.
Corbett, Robin
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cowans, Harry
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Boardman, H.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
English, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ennals, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cronin, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bradley, Tom
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Evans, John (Newton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cryer, Bob
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Buchanan, Richard
Davidson, Arthur
Flannery, Martin


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)




Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Luard, Evan
Rooker, J. W.


Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Roper, John


Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rose, Paul B.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted


Freeson, Reginald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ryman, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McElhone, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sedgemore, Brian


George, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Selby, Harry


Gilbert, Dr John
MacKenzie, Gregor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv WE)


Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Graham, Ted
Madden, Max
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Magee, Bryan
Sillars, James


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Silverman, Julius


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Small, William


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hardy, Peter
Marquand, David
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Spearing, Nigel


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stallard, A. W.


Hatton, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Meacher, Michael
Stoddart, David


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stott, Roger


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John
Strang, Gavin


Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Horam, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Swain, Thomas


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Huckfield, Les
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Molloy, William
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tierney, Sydney


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland
Tomlinson, John


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tomney, Frank


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Newens, Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


Janner, Greville
Noble, Mike
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


John, Brynmor
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ovenden, John
Watkins, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Watkinson, John


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Padley, Walter
Weetch, Ken


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Palmer, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, George
Wellbeloved, James


Judd, Frank
Parker, John
White, James (Pollok)


Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Kerr, Russell
Pendry, Tom
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kinnock, Neil
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lambie, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lamborn, Harry
Prescott, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lee, John
Radice, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Woodall, Alec


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Richardson, Miss Joe
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lamond, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Litterick, Tom
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Frank R. White


Loyden, Eddie
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Beith, A. J.
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Alison, Michael
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bradford, Rev Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Brotherton, Michael


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Body, Richard
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, Kenneth
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul


Banks, Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick







Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Carson, John
Hodgson, Robin
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John


Channon, Paul
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, John (Harrow West)


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pardoe, John


Clegg, Walter
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cockcroft, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Penhaligon, David


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Percival, Ian


Cordle, John H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Corrie, John
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crawford, Douglas
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Critchley, Julian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling Michael
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Reid, George


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dunlop, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Elliott, Sir William
Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lane, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Farr, John
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fell, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Forman, Nigel
MacCormick, Iain
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin


Fox, Marcus
McCusker, H.
Shersby, Michael


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Freud, Clement
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Fry, Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Sproat, Iain


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, John


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter
Stokes, John


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Griffiths, Eldon
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moate, Roger
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Thompson, George


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Havers, Sir Michael
Mudd, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.







Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Warren, Kenneth
Winterton, Nicholas


Viggers, Peter
Watt, Hamish
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Weatherill, Bernard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Wakeham, John
Wells, John
Younger, Hon George


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Welsh, Andrew



Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker-Smith, Rt Han Sir Derek
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Wall, Patrick
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. W. Benyon.


Walters, Dennis
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, my vote is guided by precedent, and I vote with the Ayes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: It now being six hours after the commencement of the proceedings it is my duty under the Order which the House made on 8th November to put forthwith the necessary motions in respect of Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 52, to which there are Government amendments. These motions are, in each case, first, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, and, secondly, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.

Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 52, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I now call the Minister formally to move in succession any motions to disagree with the remaining Lords amendments. I am explaining the position to the Minister and the House so that the House knows exactly what it is doing.

Lords Amendment No. 14 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 4, line 13, to leave out subsections (3) to (7).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Harold Walker]:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 310.

Division No. 393.]
AYES
[12.55 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Allaun, Frank
Corbett, Robin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Anderson, Donald
Cowans, Harry
Ford, Ben


Archer, Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Forrester, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Ashley, Jack
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Ashton, Joe
Cronin, John
Freeson, Reginald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Atkinson, Norman
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cryer, Bob
George, Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gilbert, Dr John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Ginsburg, David


Bates, Alt
Dalyell, Tam
Golding, John


Bean, R. E.
Davidson, Arthur
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Graham, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Grocott, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dormand, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hatton, Frank


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dunn, James A.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchanan, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hooley, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Eadie, Alex
Horam, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Edge, Geoff
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Huckfield, Les


Canavan, Dennis
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carmichael, Neil
Ennals, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carter, Ray
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hunter, Adam


Cartwright, John
Evans, John (Newton)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Clemitson, Ivor
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cohen, Stanley
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Janner, Greville


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fill, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Concannon, J. D.
Flannery, Martin
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)




Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Silverman, Julius


John, Brynmor
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Molloy, William
Small, William


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Moonman, Eric
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Judd, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Stallard, A. W.


Kaufman, Gerald
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Kelley, Richard
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stoddart, David


Kerr, Russell
Newens, Stanley
Stott, Roger


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Noble, Mike
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Neil
Oakes, Gordon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lambie, David
Ogden, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamborn, Harry
O'Halloran, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Lamond, James
Orbach, Maurice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Leadbitter, Ted
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lee, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Padley, Walter
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Palmer, Arthur
Tierney, Sydney


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Park, George
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John
Tomlinson, John


Lipton, Marcus
Parry, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Litterick, Tom
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Lomas, Kenneth
Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Loyden, Eddie
Perry, Ernest
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Luard, Evan
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Prentice, RI Hon Reg
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McCartney, Hugh
Price, William (Rugby)
Ward, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Radice, Giles
Watkins, David


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Watkinson, John


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Richardson, Miss Joe
Weetch, Ken


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


MacKenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wellbeloved, James


Mackintosh, John P.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey
White, James (Pollok)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Whitehead, Phillip


McNamara. Kevin
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Whitlock, William


Madden, Max
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Roper, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mahon, Simon
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mallalieu, J.P.W.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marks, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Marquand, David
Ryman, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sandelson, Neville
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marshall, Jim
Sedgemore, Brian
Woodall, Alec


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Selby, Harry
Woof, Robert


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Mendelson, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Donald Coleman


Miller, Dr M. S.
Sillars, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Costain, A. P.


Aitken, Jonathan
Brotherton, Michael
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Alison, Michael
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crawford, Douglas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul
Critchley, Julian


Arnold, Tom
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crouch, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Awdry, Daniel
Budgen, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bulmer, Esmond
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Baker, Kenneth
Burden, F. A.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, Burnaby


Beith, A. J.
Carlisle, Mark
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Carson, John
Dunlop, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Durant, Tony


Benyon, W.
Channon, Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, John
Churchill, W. S.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Blaker, Peter
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Elliott, Sir William


Body, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Emery, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Walter
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bottomley, Peter
Cockcroft, John
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Eyre, Reginald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cope, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bradford, Rev Robert
Cordle, John H.
Fairgrieve, Russell


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Farr, John


Brittan, Leon
Corrie, John
Fell, Anthony




Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lane, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rippon, RI Hon Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Forman, Nigel
Le Merchant, Spencer
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)

Lloyd, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Freud, Clement
Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fry, Peter
Luce, Richard
Royle, Sir Anthony


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sainsbury, Tim


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacCormick, Iain
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McCrindle, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McCusker, H.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacGregor, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shepherd, Colin


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shersby, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David
Silvester, Fred


Gorst, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marten, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mates, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mather, Carol
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Hall, Sir John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter
Stanley, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector
Stokes, John


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Stradling Thomas, J.


Havers, Sir Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Tapsell, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint
Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tebbit, Norman


Henderson, Douglas
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Thompson, George


Hooson, Emlyn
Nelson, Anthony
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hordern, Peter
Neubert, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hodgson, Robin
Nott, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Viggers, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Osborn, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wakeham, John


Hurd, Douglas
Page, Richard (Workington)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


James, David
Pardoe, John
Wall, Patrick


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Jessel, Toby
Penhaligon, David
Warren, Kenneth


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Percival, Ian
Watt, Hamish


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Weatherill, Bernard


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John


Jopling Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Welsh, Andrew


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wiggin, Jerry


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, RI Hon Francis
Wigley, Dafydd


Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Kilfedder, James
Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Younger, Hon George


Kirk, Sir Peter
Reid, George



Kitson, Sir Timothy
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Knight, Mrs Jill
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Cecil Parkinson


Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Mr. Speaker: The House understands that my vote is guided by precedent. My vote is for the Ayes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 disagreed to.

Schedule 2

MATTERS FOR NEW DOCK LABOUR SCHEME

Lords amendment: No. 46, in page 24, line 37, leave out from "workers" to end of line 40 and insert—
(a) provison for training and welfare in so far as provision does not exist apart from the Scheme;
(b) the administration of any severance in accordance with the terms of any national

agreement of the National Joint Council or other relevant joint industrial negotiating body."

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 310.

Division No.394.]
AYES
[1.15 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Allaun, Frank
Dempsey, James
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Anderson, Donald
Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville


Archer, Peter
Dormand, J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Ashley, Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Atkinson, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Edge, Geoff
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bates, Alf
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bean, R. E.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Judd, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Ennals, David
Kelley, Richard


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kerr, Russell


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boardman, H.
Evans, John (Newton)
Kinnock, Neil


Booth, RI Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lambie, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
Lamborn, Harry


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lamond, James


Bradley, Tom
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Flannery, Martin
Lee, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Buchanan, Richard
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Forrester, John
Lipton, Marcus


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Litterick, Tom


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lomas, Kenneth


Campbell, Ian
Freeson, Reginald
Loyden, Eddie


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Luard, Evan


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Carmichael, Neil
George, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Carter, Ray
Gilbert, Dr John
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ginsburg, David
McCartney, Hugh


Cartwright, John
Golding, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Gould, Bryan
McElhone, Frank


Clemitson, Ivor
Gourlay, Harry
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Graham, Ted
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Coleman, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mackintosh, John P.


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Grocott, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hardy, Peter
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Harper, Joseph
Magee, Bryan


Cowans, Harry
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mahon, Simon


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hatton, Frank
Marks, Kenneth


Cronin, John
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marquand, David


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Healey, RI Hon Denis
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Horam, John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Huckfield, Les
Mendelson, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Deakins, Eric
Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Molloy, William


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Moonman, Eric




Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)




Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rooker, J. W.
Tomlinson, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Roper, John
Tomney, Frank


Moyle, Roland
Rose, Paul B.
Torney, Tom


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Urwin, T. W.


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Rowlands, Ted
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Newens, Stanley
Ryman, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Noble, Mike
Sandelson, Neville
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Oakes, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Selby, Harry
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


O'Halloran, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Ward, Michael


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Watkins, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkinson, John


Ovenden, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Weetch, Ken


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weitzman, David


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, James
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Park, George
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Pollock)


Parker, John
Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Phillip


Parry, Robert
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Perry, Ernest
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Radice, Giles
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Richardson, Miss Jo
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)



Robinson, Geoffrey
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tierney, Sydney
Mr. Joseph Ashton.


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Tinn, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Alison, Michael
Cordle, John H.
Goodhart, Philip


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhew, Victor


Arnold, Tom
Corrie, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Costain, A. P.
Gorst, John


Awdry, Daniel
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Crawford, Douglas
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Baker, Kenneth
Critchley, Julian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Banks, Robert
Crouch, David
Gray, Hamish


Beith, A. J.
Crowder, F. P.
Grieve, Percy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Griffiths, Eldon


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Benyon, W.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grist, fan


Berry, Hon Anthony
Drayson, Burnaby
Grylls, Michael


Biffen, John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hall, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunlop, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Blaker, Peter
Durant, Tony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body, Richard
Dykes, Hugh
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hannam, John


Bottomley, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Elliott, Sir William
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Emery, Peter
Hastings, Stephen


Bradford, Rev Robert
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Havers, Sir Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Hawkins, Paul


Brittan, Leon
Eyre, Reginald
Hayhoe, Barney


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Brotherton, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell
Henderson, Douglas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Heseltine, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fell, Anthony
Hicks, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Higgins, Terence L.


Buck, Antony
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hodgson, Robin


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Holland, Philip


Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hooson, Emlyn


Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hordern, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Forman, Nigel
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Carson, John
Fox, Marcus
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Channon, Paul
Freud, Clement
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Churchill, W. S.
Fry, Peter
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hurd, Douglas


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
James, David


Cockcroft, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)




Jessel, Toby
Morgan, Geraint
Silvester, Fred


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sims, Roger


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sinclair, Sir George


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jopling, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Mudd, David
Speed, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Spence, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Kershaw, Anthony
Neubert, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Kilfedder, James
Newton, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Kimball, Marcus
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Nott, John
Stanley, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Kirk, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Osborn, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Knox, David
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Lamont, Norman
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lane, David
Paisley, Rev Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lawrence, Ivan
Penhaligon, David
Tebbit, Norman


Lawson, Nigel
Percival, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Le Merchant, Spencer
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pink, R. Bonner
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Thomas, Rt Hop. (Hendon S)


Lloyd, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Loveridge, John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thompson, George


Luce, Richard
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Raison, Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D.


MacCormick, Iain
Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


McCrindle, Robert
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tugendhat, Christopher


McCusker, H.
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macfarlane, Neil
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


MacGregor, John
Reid, George
Viggers, Peter


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wakenham, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Madel, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Marten, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wall, Patrick


Mates, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Warren, Kenneth


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Watt, Hamish


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Weatherill, Bernard


Mawby, Ray
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wells, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Welsh, Andrew


Mayhew, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wiggin, Jerry


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wigley, Dafydd


Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Moate, Roger
Scott-Hopkins, James
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Molyneaux, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Younger, Hon George


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)



Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. John Pardoe and


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Cyril Smith.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 51 and 53 to 58 disagreed to.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I now require to put the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining amendments.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government have now been defeated on a major piece of their legislative programme. There is obviously no majority in the House and no authority for the Government to pro-

ceed with the Bill. The correct course must surely be that the Government now drop the Bill. I call upon the Secretary of State to announce that he will drop the Bill and that he will make a statement to that effect immediately.

Mr. Booth: The House has carried two of the amendments sent to it by their Lordships.
I propose now to move,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments:
That Mr. Booth, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Prior and Mr. Harold Walker be members of the Committee:
That Three be the quorum of the Committee:
That they withdraw immediately.

Mr. Speaker: I have had a manuscript amendment handed to me, to add after the last name of the proposed members of the Committee "Mr. Stephen Ross".

Motion made, and Question,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.—[Mr. Booth.]

Put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, and agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed.

That Mr. Booth, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Prior and Mr. Harold Walker be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Booth.]

Mr. Speaker: I now put the manuscript amendment.

Amendment proposed: After "Walker" insert "Mr. Stephen Ross". —[Mr. Beith.]

Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 311.

Division No. 395.]
AYES
[1.36 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Aitken, Jonathan
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Alison, Michael
Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Emery, Peter
Hurd, Douglas


Arnold, Tom
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Awdry, Daniel
Eyre, Reginald
James, David


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Baker, Kenneth
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jessel, Toby


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Beith, A. J.
Fell, Anthony
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jopling, Michael


Benyon, W.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Biffen, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Biggs-Davison, John
Forman, Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kilfedder, James


Body, Richard
Fox, Marcus
Kimball, Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bottomley, Peter
Freud, Clement
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fry, Peter
Kirk, Sir Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Knox, David


Brittan, Leon
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Lamont, Norman


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lane, David


Brotherton, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Lawrence, Ivan


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodhew, Victor
Lawson, Nigel


Buck, Antony
Goodlad, Alastair
Le Marchant, Spencer


Budgen, Nick
Gorst, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Burden, F. A.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lloyd, Ian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Loveridge, John


Carlisle, Mark
Gray, Hamish
Luce, Richard


Carson, John
Grieve, Percy
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Eldon
MacCormick, Iain


Channon, Paul
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McCrindle, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Grist, Ian
McCusker, H.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grylls, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hall, Sir John
MacGregor, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farmham)


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wlison, M. (Newbury)


Cockcroft, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hannam, John
Madel, David


Cope, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cordle, John H.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Marten, Neil


Cormack, Patrick
Hastings, Stephen
Mates, Michael


Corrie, John
Havers, Sir Michael
Mather, Carol


Costain, A. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Maude, Angus


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hayhoe, Barney
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Crawford, Douglas
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mawby, Ray


Critchley, Julian
Henderson, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Crouch, David
Heseltine, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick


Crowder, F. P.
Hicks, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Higgins, Terence L.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hodqson, Robin
Mills, Peter


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
Hooson, Emlyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hordern, Peter
Moate, Roger


Dunlop, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James


Durant, Tony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Monro, Hector


Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Montgomery, Fergus




Moore, John (Croydon C)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Morgan, Geraint
Rifkind, Malcolm
Tebbit, Norman


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Datydd (Merioneth)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mudd, David
Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)
Thompson, George


Neave, Airey
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Nelson, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Neubert, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Tony
Royle, Sir Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Normanlon, Tom
Sainsbury, Tim
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nott, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Onslow, Cranley
Scott, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Osborn, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakenham, John


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker Bt Hon P. (Worcester)


Page, Richard (Workington)
Shepherd, Colin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Paisley, Rev Ian
Shersby, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Parkinson, Cecil
Silvester, Fred
Walters, Dennis


Pattie, Geoffrey
Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Penhaligon, David
Sinclair, Sir George
Watt, Hamish


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Weatherill, Bernard


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, John


Pink, R. Bonder
Speed, Keith
Welsh, Andrew


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wiggin, Jerry


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wigley, Dafydd


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sproat, Iain
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Raison, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Rathbone, Tim
Stanley, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Younger, Hon George


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)



Reid, George
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stokes, John
Mr. John Pardoe and


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Cyril Smith.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tapsell, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Allaun, Frank
Coleman, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Anderson, Donald
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Archer, Peter
Concannon, J. D.
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Ashley, Jack
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cowans, Harry
Flannery, Martin


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cronin, John
Ford, Ben


Bates, Alf
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Forrester, John


Bean, R. E.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cryer, Bob
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Freeson, Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tarn
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
George, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gilbert, Dr John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Ginsburg, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Tom
Deakins, Eric
Gourlay, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Grant, John (Islington C)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Buchanan, Richard
Dormand, J. D.
Hardy, Peter


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Harper, Joseph


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dunn, James A.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Campbell, Ian
Dunnett, Jack
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hatton, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Carmichael, Neil
Edge, Geoff
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Carter, Ray
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Heffer, Eric S.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hooley, Frank


Cartwright, John
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Horam, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
English, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Clemitson, Ivor
Ennals, David
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Huckfield, Les




Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)







Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hunter, Adam
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sillars, James


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Mendelson, John
Silverman, Julius


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Small, William


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Janner, Greville
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Spearing, Nigel


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Molloy, William
Stallard, A. W.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moonman, Eric
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stoddart, David


John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stott, Roger


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


Johnson, Waller (Derby S)
Moyle, Roland
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Newens, Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Judd, Frank
Noble, Mike
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Kaufman, Gerald
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Kerr, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orbach, Maurice
Tierney, Sydney


Kinnock, Neil
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tinn, James


Lambie, David
Ovenden, John
Tomlinson, John


Lamborn, Harry
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Tomney, Frank


Lamond, James
Padley, Walter
Torney, Tom


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Park, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lee, John
Parker, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Parry, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Pavitt, Laurie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Pendry, Tom
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest
Ward, Michael


Lipton, Marcus
Phipps, Dr Colin
Watkins, David


Litterick, Tom
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Watkinson, John


Lomas, Kenneth
Prescott, John
Weetch, Ken


Loyden, Eddie
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Weitzman, David


Luard, Evan
Price, William (Rugby)
Wellbeloved, James


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Radice, Giles
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
White, James (Pollock)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Richardson, Miss Jo
Whitehead, Phillip


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McElhone, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


MacLennan, Robert
Hooker, J. W.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roper, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McNamara, Kevin
Rose, Paul B.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Woodall, Alec


Magee, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted
Woof, Robert


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Ryman, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mahon, Simon
Sandelson, Neville
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sedgemore, Brian



Marks, Kenneth
Selby, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marquand, David
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Mr. Peter Snape.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question,
That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Booth.]

Put, forthwith pursuant to the Order this day, and agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately.

EDUCATION BILL

Motion made, and Question,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.— [Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day and, agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Dr. Boyson, Miss Margaret Jackson, Mr. St. John-Stevas, Mr. Frank R. White and Mrs. Shirley Williams be members of the Committee.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]

Mr. Speaker: I should announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).

Amendment proposed: After "That", insert "Mr. Alan Beith ".—[Mr. Peyton.]

Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 308.

Division No. 396.]
AYES
[1.52 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Aitken, Jonathan
Fell, Anthony
Kirk, Sir Peter


Alison, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knight, Mrs Jill


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knox, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lamont, Norman


Awdry, Daniel
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Baker, Kenneth
Forman, Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Banks, Robert
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Latham, Michael (Mellon)


Beith, A. J.
Fox, Marcus
Lawrence, Ivan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawson, Nigel


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Freud, Clement
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Ian


Biffen, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Loveridge, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Luce, Richard


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
MacCormick, Iain


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McCusker, H.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Goodhart, Philip
Macfarlane, Neil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John


Bradford, Rev Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Brittan, Leon
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Madel, David


Brotherton, Michael
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grieve, Percy
Mates, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Griffiths, Eldon
Mather, Carol


Buck, Antony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maude, Angus


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bulmer, Esmond
Grylls, Michael
Mawby, Ray


Burden, F. A.
Hall, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mayhew, Patrick


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carson, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hannam, John
Mills, Peter


Channon, Paul
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Churchill, W. S.
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Havers, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hawkins, Paul
Molyneaux, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Clegg, Walter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Montgomery, Fergus


Cockcroft, John
Heseltine, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cope, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint


Cordle, John H.
Hodgson, Robin
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Corrie, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cowans, Harry
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mudd, David


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey


Crawford, Douglas
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nelson, Anthony


Critchley, Julian
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Neubert, Michael


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Normanton, Tom


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Osborn, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Dunlop, John
Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Durant, Tony
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Dykes, Hugh
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pardoe, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Elliott, Sir William
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Penhaligon, David


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Percival, Ian


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James
Pink, R. Bonner


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Fairgrieve, Russell
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Price, David (Eastleigh)




Prior, Rt Hon James




Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Silvester, Fred
Townsend, Cyril D.


Raison, Timothy
Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Sinclair, Sir George
Tugendhat, Christopher


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John
Wakenham, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stanley, John
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Warren, Kenneth


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Watt, Hamish


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Weatherill, Bernard


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, John


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stokes, John
Welsh, Andrew


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Royle, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Tim
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wigley, Dafydd


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Winterton, Nicholas


Scott, Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Scott-Hopkins, James
Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret
Younger, Hon George


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shepherd, Colin
Thompson, George
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Shersby, Michael
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Michael Roberts.





NOES



Abse, Leo
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Allaun, Frank
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Anderson, Donald
Cryer, Bob
Grocott, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashley, Jack
Davidson, Arthur
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harper, Joseph


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric
Hatton, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bates, Alf
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bean, R. E.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hooley, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Huckfield, Les


Boardman, H.
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bradley, Tom
Edge, Geoff
Hunter, Adam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
English, Michael
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David
Janner, Greville


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Campbell, Ian
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carter, Ray
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Clemitson, Ivor
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Cohen, Stanley
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kinnock, Neil


Concannon, J. D.
Freeson, Reginald
Lambie, David


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lamborn, Harry


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lamond, James


Corbett, Robin
George, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cowans, Harry
Gilbert, Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ginsburg, David
Lee, John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Golding, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Crawshaw, Richard
Gould, Bryan
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)







Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Litterick, Tom
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stoddart, David


Lomas, Kenneth
Ovenden, John
Strang, Gavin


Loyden, Eddie
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Luard, Evan
Padley, Walter
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Palmer, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Park, George
Taylor, Mrs Arm (Bolton W)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Parker, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McCartney, Hugh
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McElhone, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Perry, Ernest
Tierney, Sydney


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tinn, James


MacKenzie, Gregor
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tomlinson, John


Mackintosh, John P.
Prescott, John
Tomney, Frank


Maclennan, Robert
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Torney, Tom


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Price, William (Rugby)
Urwin, T. W.


McNamara, Kevin
Radice, Giles
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Ward, Michael


Marks, Kenneth
Robinson, Geoffrey
Watkins, David


Marquand, David
Roderick, Caerwyn
Watkinson, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Weitzman, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, J. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Roper, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Meacher, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Pollock)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Ted
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Ryman, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Selby, Harry
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Molloy, William
Sheldon. Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Moonman, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woodall, Alec


Moyle, Roland
Sillars, James
Woof, Robert


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silverman, Julius
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton E)


Newens, Stanley
Small, William



Noble, Mike
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Ted Graham and


Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Peter Snape.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith and agreed to.
That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.],
put forthwith pursuant to the Order this day, and agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

NAVAL AIRCRAFT YARD, WROUGHTON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

2.6 a.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The decisions of the House tonight have shown to a considerable extent the relevance of the comments that I propose to make, for the simple reasons that those decisions forecast the demise of this Government and the arrival in the not too distant future of another Government, who will be committed above all to the defence of this country. It is in relation to defence with regard to a particular base in this country that I wish to speak.
I would first give credit to the action group made up of representatives of trade unions at the Royal Naval Aircraft


Yard at Wroughton in Wiltshire. In recent weeks the Royal Naval Aircraft Yard must have been a thorn in the flesh of the Under-Secretary for the Navy, as well as the Ministry of Defence. I make no apology for this, since the currently proposed closure of that yard involves the jobs of some 250 men, many of them highly skilled but in an area of high unemployment.
Only last month the unemployment rate was 6·6 per cent. in the Swindon area, which includes Wroughton. It is because of that in particular that the action group in the aircraft yard has been so active. On the other hand, I would thank the Under-Secretary for having seen my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and myself at the beginning of August and for listening so carefully to our remarks about the aircraft yard. Even so, he cannot have heard all our remarks, or fully understood them. If he had, the proposal to close Wroughton would by now have been dropped. This brief debate provides a chance to repeat some of the points and to make others.
That said, it is a commonly held view, with which I have great sympathy, that the closure proposal stems not from logic or from a well-argued case or from the defence needs of the country, but simply from an edict of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—because he knows that, in our present economic situation, when cuts in public expenditure are a necessity, he must make cuts in defence solely to mollify his left-wing. It is about time that that Soviet of left-wingers realised that by insisting on defence cuts they are adding directly to unemployment in different parts of the country.
Because of this, or for other reasons perhaps, an arbitrary decision was taken to close Wroughton. Without warning and with no prior consultation, on 15th February this year, suddenly out of the blue, employees at Wroughton were informed of the closure. The announcement was made only three days after another statement by the superintendent of the aircraft yard which predicted a rosy future for the yard.
That is a staggering way for the Ministry of Defence to behave. It is appalling when the current political masters of the Ministry of Defence are Labour politi-

cians who constantly preach consultation and who pride themselves on good trade union relations. The employees of Wroughton were simply faced with a fait accompli.
The behaviour of the Navy in respect of this yard appears even worse when contrasted with that of the Army in a similar situation which also arose in my constituency. Again in February of this year, the Army undertook a review of Army logistic restructuring in the United Kingdom. Among other bases involved was the Central Vehicle Depot at Ludger-shall, which is just in Wiltshire, albeit near Andover.
But no arbitrary decision was taken in that case. Far from it. The Army published a consultative memorandum whose purpose was
to provide a basis for the Department's initial consultations with its departmental, staff and trade union sides".
The memorandum suggested the closure of the depot, but consultations were held. The unions were able to disprove the case on which the suggested closure was based, the suggestion was dropped and the depot remains in existence.
I do not know whether the outcome of a similar exercise at Wroughton would have been the same but, whatever the outcome, justice would have been seen to be done and the justification for the Navy's decision would have been tested through the consultative process. It is no defence now for the Ministry of Defence to claim that the former Under-Secretary visited Wroughton, as he did so only after the arbitrary decision had been made.
What is the Navy's justification for the closure proposal? First, it is that it will save money and, second, that the tasks performed there can be done by existing staff and installations, thereby adding an overall financial saving. I do not intend to bandy figures with the Under-Secretary across the Floor of the House. Common ground between the official and staff sides can be established only by detailed discussion around a table. Suffice it to say that every figure produced by the official side since the closure decision was made has been questioned and doubted, and no satisfactory reaction from the official side has there been. Furthermore, the staff side is of the opinion that figures are being produced almost at random merely


to justify the arbitrary decision and without a basis in fact.
Worse than that, the Wroughton staff believe that, far from saving money, the closure will add to defence costs while reducing the efficiency of the naval yard repair organisation, which at Wroughton has not only a naval rôle but a tri-Ser-vice role. One staff estimate is that the closure of Wroughton would mean an increased cost to the Ministry of Defence of £50,000, while the Ministry of Defence estimates a saving of £979,000. In comparing estimated costs we must bear in mind that we have insufficient information.
The alternative site for the Wroughton work is Fleetlands. In passing—I regret that it is necessary to say this—Fleet-lands is in or adjacent to the constituency of the former Under-Secretary of State for the Navy, and that, rightly or wrongly, has added still more suspicion to the whole affair.
My information is that Fleetlands, far from being able to cope with its new responsibilities on the basis of its present staff, will require 120 more fitters—not 40, which was the original figure mentioned during the summer. In addition, I have today been told that the capital cost of resiting the aircraft storage requirement from Wroughton to near Fleet-lands will be nearly double the original estimate. I cannot vouch for my figures, but it is clear that there is great confusion.
That confusion was made worse when the Ministry of Defence, in reply to a memorandum written by the action group at Wroughton about the closure of the yard, referred casually to the sale of land without giving any estimate of the sum expected to be realised from the sale. The possibility of sale raises other questions.
I am informed by one of the planning authorities involved—this is purely opinion—that in all likelihoods the sale of the land could be only on the basis of agricultural use. In other words, the land would have to revert to its original use. If so, the Ministry of Defence could easily incur huge expense in removing hangars and ripping up runways. What estimate has been made of that cost, and has it been included in the Ministry of Defence calculation?
I hope that I have said enough to emphasise the fog and confusion which exist about the proposal to close the aircraft yard. The uncertainties are many more than time allows me to describe. The questions in the minds of Wroughton employees still remain unanswered. What is the economic justification? What is the strategic justification? Is it right to centralise the repair work of naval and other Service aircraft? Why were there no consultations? Was regard paid to local employees' prospects in the Swindon area? Are the skills at Wroughton available at Fleetlands? What is proposed for the Wroughton site in future? These are only some of the many questions which need to be answered.
What is to be done? I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a fair duty to take back the decision to close the yard and to set up a public inquiry. Only then can all the facts be known. Only then can the Secretary of State be certain whether he is saving money or spending more. Only then can the Chancellor of the Exchequer know whether he is getting a good or a bad deal. Only then can this matter be judged against the country's defence needs. Only then can justice be seen to be done. If there is a public inquiry, I believe that the facts will speak so strongly that closure of the yard will not take place.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I associate myself with the excellent case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). Many of the employees who work at Wroughton live in and around my constituency. They feel, as the Minister knows, angry and re sentful of the way in which this decision was reached.
In view of the shortage of time, I want to emphasise only one serious aspect, that of prior consultation. It is a little surprising that the Ministry has made this mistake in the light of an earlier experience a few years ago at Copenacre naval depot, in my constituency.
There was then a decision taken with little discussion, but a public inquiry was held, chaired by the Bishop of Bristol. The facts were then fully discussed, and in the end the proposed closure was cancelled. People there felt that justice had been done and that they had seen it being done. There should be a public inquiry


in this case, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he proposes to hold one.

2.23 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): It is entirely right that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) should have proposed this subject for our debate this evening. The closure of any Government establishment with any consequent loss of jobs is not a matter that can be treated lightly, especially at the present time. I can assure the House that the Government did not take the decision to close Wroughton lightly. I hope that the House will understand the reasons why we decided as we did, and why there could be no alternative in present circumstances.
It may be helpful to explain first Wroughton's rôle in the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation, NARO. As well as the yard at Wroughton, there is a major aircraft yard at Fleetlands, near Gosport, an aircraft workshop at Perth, and a smaller facility which is part of the naval depot at Copenacre. The principal task of the organisation is the repair and servicing of helicopters for all three Services. The RAF has similar responsibilities for fixed-wing aircraft.
The Royal Navy began to assume a tri-Service responsibility for helicopters in 1972. The facilities then placed at the disposal of the Navy were those assessed to be required for a task which would build up very considerably over the 1970s. The capacity made available would have been sufficient to cope with that task. But since then the Government have undertaken a thorough defence review. There have been changes in the plans of all three Services. Moreover, we have had to make further reductions in our planned defence budget.
What was to be the effect of these various changes? We were bound to look most closely at all our support facilities. We had to ensure that we were getting value for money. That is a vital objective, as I am sure the whole House would agree. Whether the repair of helicopters is carried out in defence facilities or in outside industry—and the task is shared with industry—we must see that we get value for money.
We therefore made a careful examination of the future helicopter repair requirements for all three Services. It became apparent that we should soon have considerable surplus capacity in the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation. To remove the surplus capacity, we could have made reductions in our planned staff numbers at the various establishments. But our facilities would then have been under-used. The overheads would have made this solution uneconomical.
Alternatively, we could have diverted repair work planned for industry back to Service facilities. But we believe it is right that the aircraft industry should continue to receive its agreed share of the work. Besides, without major capital investment, Wroughton would not have been able to take on the work currently done by industry.
We concluded that the only course was to close Wroughton. Wroughton's repair task can be completely absorbed at Fleet-lands by 1979. Our forecast work load for Fleetlands for 1977–78—before Wroughton closes—compared with 1979–80 shows that Fleetlands' task will increase by only about 5 per cent. With the considerably reduced helicopter storage task now forecast, it will also be possible to store the necessary aircraft in the vicinity of Fleetlands.
The Services' operational capability will not be impaired by the closure of Wroughton. Moreover, the closure of an establishment, rather than a reduction in staff spread throughout the NARO, will produce greater savings to the defence budget.
The hon. Member for Devizes has scorned the financial savings that we expect to achieve from Wroughton's closure. I can confirm that it is our estimate that there will be a net annual saving to defence Votes in recurrent costs of about £1 million when Wroughton is finally closed. I can assure the House that the Navy can use that £1 million.
I appreciate that the closure of Wroughton is bound to be a painful process for the staff. I have listened with some sympathy to what the hon. Member for Devizes has said about the lack of consultation before the decision was announced, because I appreciate how vital consultation is. I would merely say


that earlier this year we had at short notice to draw up plans for achieving further savings on the defence budget. We saw no alternative to the closure of several establishments, of which Wroughton was one.
Although we were unable to consult before the decision, we have at least given notice of our intentions well in advance. We expect to complete the transfer of the aircraft repair task by 1979, although storage facilities could be needed for a period after that. Over the last few months the Ministry of Defence has been very willing to listen to the representations of the staff associations and trade unions. The Wroughton staff produced this summer a well argued report against closure and I have it here. I also have the reply of the Ministry of Defence. We took the representations of the staff and their own considered case very seriously, as can be seen in the note that I have now in my possession. I believe that that note reflected a full and sympathetic reply. I am therefore rather taken aback, to say the least, to hear the suggestion from the hon. Member for Devizes that we have not been prepared to listen to Wroughton's case.
I also have here a list of exchanges between my predecessor, and the previous Secretary of State, as well as myself, with the hon. Gentleman and with other local champions of the Wroughton case. I am looking at the list and I pick out names such as that of Mr. Vic Finlayson. There are also the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry.) The hon. Gentleman must know this, and cannot really be serious in his insistence that there has been a lack of consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd), when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Navy, visited Wroughton to explain personally to the work force why the Government had taken the difficult decision to close the yard. Both my predecessor and I have on several occasions corresponded on the closure of Wroughton with my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, the hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for Chippenham. What is more, we have both had discussions with all three hon. Members in the Department and here in this House.
In September, Wroughton staff representatives, together with the departmental staff and trade union sides, attended a meeting with the Chief of Fleet Support to discuss the closure. The Wroughton staff representatives have been offered a further meeting with my officials to discuss the background to the decision, together with the run-down plans. I hope what I have said sets the record straight on the question of consultation since February. We could not have had more in the time available, given the constraints to which were subject.
We are more than willing to discuss the arrangements for the run-down of Wroughton with the staff representatives. The closure of the yard will take place in stages, So far as possible, we shall try to avoid actual redundancies. Mobile staff—mainly professional and technical officers—will be offered transfers to other posts in the normal way. We have also offered aircraft fitters the opportunity to transfer to Fleetlands. We shall make every effort to offer alternative employment wherever possible. In these ways we shall do our utmost to ease the impact of the yard's closure.
As I said earlier, the closure of a defence establishment cannot be treated lightly. It is obviously important that the Services should have the facilities that they need, whether in a defence establishment or in industry, to ensure that helicopters are repaired and maintained in an efficient and timely fashion. Having served in the Fleet Air Arm myself and more recently seen some of NARO's work, I am well aware how important these support facilities are. I am satisfied that we have facilities that meet the Services' needs and will continue to do so after Wroughton has been closed.
But there is another aspect to this debate. As a defence Minister I also have a duty to see that the resources which the nation can devote to defence are spent wisely and economically. The Opposition may take a different view from the Government on the size of the defence budget, but they must surely accept, particularly when they call for further cuts in public spending, that, whatever the level of defence expenditure, the Services' requirements must be met as economically as possible. The Opposition cannot criticise us for sensible measures of


rationalisation, and the closure of Wroughton is essentially a measure of rationalisation.
Of course, it is true that the further defence cuts we have made, as part of our reductions in public spending, will affect jobs. We are very much aware of the consequencies. But we cannot justify the retention of establishments and staff for whom we cannot provide full work.
If we were not to take measures such as the closure of the aircraft yard at

Wroughton, we should have to take other measures that might put the Services' operational capability at risk. I am sure we have made the right choice. We now have to implement our decisions. I can assure the House not only that we shall be aiming to achieve the necessary savings in public expenditure, but that we shall also be giving all the help we can to the staff concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Three o'clock a.m.